Case 4:09-cv WAP-DAS Document 90 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 18
|
|
- Kenneth Clarke
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 4:09-cv WAP-DAS Document 90 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION NEAL HALEY AND SHERRY HALEY, ET AL VS. MERIAL LIMITED, MERIAL LLC, AND MERIAL, INC. PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:09-CV-094-P-S DEFENDANTS MERIAL LLC S (MERIAL LIMITED) ANSWER AND DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT COMES NOW Merial LLC/Merial Limited, (referred to as Merial hereinafter), incorrectly identified in the plaintiffs Amended Complaint as separate legal entities, through its counsel and pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and responds to the plaintiffs Amended Complaint as follows: INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT Merial Limited and Merial LLC are the same entity. Merial Limited is a company limited by shares registered in England and Wales (registered number ) with a registered office at P.O. Box 327, Sandringham House, Sandringham Avenue, Harlow Business Park, Harlow, Essex CM19 5QA, England, and domesticated in Delaware, as Merial LLC, and having a place of business at 3239 Satellite Boulevard, Bldg. 500, Duluth, Georgia USA. FIRST DEFENSE The plaintiffs Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against Merial upon which relief can be granted in whole or in part.
2 Case 4:09-cv WAP-DAS Document 90 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 18 SECOND DEFENSE ANSWER Subject to the above listed defense, Merial responds to the allegations of the plaintiffs Amended Complaint, paragraph by paragraph as follows: 1. Merial denies that the plaintiffs satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and denies that the plaintiffs can assert any claims on behalf of the proposed plaintiff class. Merial is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Merial admits the allegations contained in Paragraph Merial admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 3. By way of further information, Merial LLC is the domesticated counterpart of Merial Limited and is domesticated in the State of Delaware pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit and Merial LLC s principal place of business is located in the State of Georgia. 4. Merial admits that Merial, Inc. is a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Georgia with its principal place of business in Georgia. Merial denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Denied as stated. Merial does not contest that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C and 1332(d) based on the plaintiffs allegations pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1961, et seq., and on the plaintiffs allegation that they seek in excess of $5,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Merial denies the remaining allegation contained in Paragraph Merial denies that it engaged in any improper conduct in the Northern District of Mississippi at any time relevant to plaintiffs Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 6. 2
3 Case 4:09-cv WAP-DAS Document 90 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of Denied as stated. Merial admits that it is in the animal health business globally, and that it markets and sells a product known as HEARTGARD Plus (ivermectin/pyrantel) as a heartworm preventive. Merial denies that Merial, Inc. is involved in the production, sale, or marketing of any of the HEARTGARD Brand Products and that Merial, Inc. has any connection to the claims asserted by the plaintiffs. Merial denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Merial admits that HEARTGARD Plus is a beef flavored chewable containing the active ingredients ivermectin and pyrantel, and admits that it has been approved by the Federal Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) to be marketed in accordance with its FDA-approved labeling, which speaks for itself. Merial denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Merial admits that HEARTGARD Plus was marketed using language to the effect that it was 100% effective against heartworms following its approval as a heartworm preventive by the FDA and based upon numerous efficacy studies demonstrating 100% efficacy when used according to label directions. Merial denies that it made any false or fraudulent claims regarding the HEARTGARD Brand Products and further denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Upon information and belief, Merial admits only that the FDA reviewed certain promotional materials related to the HEARTGARD Brand Products. Merial denies that the FDA found as a fact that the claims of 100% effectiveness were false and misleading, causing the drugs to be misbranded under the act, and, therefore, denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 10, including the allegations contained in footnote 1. 3
4 Case 4:09-cv WAP-DAS Document 90 Filed 08/09/10 Page 4 of Merial admits that the FDA s Center for Veterinary Medicine ( CVM ) sent Merial a letter dated January 2, 2002, directed to Rosalind S. Dunn but states that the letter speaks for itself. Footnote 2 contains no allegations to which a response is required. However, to the extent a response is required, Merial admits only that the plaintiffs have incorporated by reference into their Amended Complaint [Doc. 81] the exhibits attached to the plaintiffs original Complaint [Doc. 1]. Merial denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 11, including any allegations contained in footnote Merial admits that the FDA s CVM sent Merial a letter dated October 9, 2002, directed to Rosalind S. Dunn but states that the letter speaks for itself. Merial denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Denied as stated and particularly with regard to the false and malicious allegation set forth in the first sentence of Paragraph 13. Merial admits that it disseminated the promotional piece titled HeartGard Plus Provides 100% Protection Against Heartworm Disease attached as Exhibit 3 to the plaintiffs original Complaint [Doc. 1] but states that the promotional piece speaks for itself. Merial is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Merial admits that the FDA s CVM sent a letter dated January 12, 2004 to Merial but states that the letter speaks for itself. Merial also admits that the January 12, 2004 letter is related to IVOMEC Pour-On for Cattle and admits that IVOMEC and HEARTGARD Plus share ivermectin as an active ingredient. By way of further response, Merial states that IVOMEC is an FDA-approved product indicated to control numerous cattle-related parasites; however, it is wholly unrelated to the prevention of heartworm disease in dogs or any 4
5 Case 4:09-cv WAP-DAS Document 90 Filed 08/09/10 Page 5 of 18 HEARTGARD Brand Product for that matter. Merial denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Merial admits that the FDA s CVM sent Merial a letter dated August 24, 2005, directed to Liubov Skibo but states that the letter speak for itself. Merial denies the plaintiffs allegation that they do not have a copy of the August 24, 2005 letter from the FDA to Merial; a copy of same was attached as Exhibit A to Merial LLC s (Merial Limited) Answer and Defenses to Plaintiffs Complaint [Doc. 11]. Merial denies that it engaged in any fraudulent activities and, therefore, denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 15, including the allegations contained in footnote Merial admits that the FDA s CVM sent Merial a letter dated August 14, 2006, and admits that it sent letters to FDA s CVM dated September 30, 2005, and May 5, 2006, but states that all such letters speak for themselves. Merial denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Merial admits only that the FDA s CVM sent Merial a letter dated August 14, 2006, directed to Merial s Liubov Skibo, but states that the letter speaks for itself. Merial denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Merial admits only that the FDA s CVM sent Merial a letter dated August 14, 2006, directed to Merial s Liubov Skibo, but states that the letter speaks for itself. Merial denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 18, including subparts (a), (b), (c), and (d). 19. Merial denies that it ever received the letter attached as Exhibit 6 to the plaintiffs original Complaint [Doc. 1], and denies that any of the websites referenced in such letter were maintained, created, or in any way associated with Merial. By way of further response, Merial is not associated in any way with George Luntz or any business known as Native Remedies. 5
6 Case 4:09-cv WAP-DAS Document 90 Filed 08/09/10 Page 6 of 18 Merial is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph Merial admits that, at the FDA s request, it voluntarily agreed to remove certain language from promotional material regarding the 100% efficacy of the HEARTGARD Brand Products. Merial denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Merial denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 21 and specifically denies that it engaged in any fraudulent advertising and that any of the websites referenced in Paragraph 21 are in any way associated with Merial. Merial is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Merial denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 and specifically denies that it made any false or fraudulent claims regarding the HEARTGARD Brand Products, that it supplied any other persons with information to advertise or promote the HEARTGARD Brand Products, and that any of the websites referenced in Paragraph 22 are in any way associated with Merial. 23. Merial admits that it produced the promotional piece titled Protect Your Pet Against Dangerous Internal Parasites, attached to the plaintiffs original Complaint [Doc. 1] as Exhibit 20, but states that the promotional piece speaks for itself. Merial denies that it engaged in any fraudulent activity related to the HEARTGARD Brand Products and, therefore, denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Merial admits that the FDA s CVM sent Merial a letter dated June 21, 2007, directed to Liubov Skibo but states that the letter speaks for itself. Merial denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 24. 6
7 Case 4:09-cv WAP-DAS Document 90 Filed 08/09/10 Page 7 of Merial denies that it furnished or continues to furnish veterinarians and other pet care professionals with these false promotional materials. Merial is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 that [these promotional materials] remain on display in veterinarians[ ] offices for consumers to review to this day. Merial denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Upon information obtained through discovery, Merial denies the allegation that in February 2006 HEARTGARD Plus was more expensive than the previous medication [Interceptor]. Upon information obtained through discovery, Merial does not contest that a heartworm test administered to Mack in August 2006 was negative. Merial is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Upon information obtained through discovery, Merial denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of Paragraph 27. Merial is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Upon information obtained through discovery, Merial denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 28. Merial is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Merial is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 29. 7
8 Case 4:09-cv WAP-DAS Document 90 Filed 08/09/10 Page 8 of Merial is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph Upon information obtained through discovery, Merial denies the allegations contained in the first and last sentences of Paragraph 31. Merial is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph Merial is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph Merial is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph Upon information obtained through discovery, Merial denies the allegations contained in Paragraph Merial is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph Merial is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph Merial is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph Merial is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph Merial denies that it made any false or fraudulent claims regarding the HEARTGARD Brand Products, denies that plaintiff Clayton Davis had his dogs on a strict regimen of HEARTGARD Plus in accordance with its FDA-approved labeling and, therefore, denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 39. 8
9 Case 4:09-cv WAP-DAS Document 90 Filed 08/09/10 Page 9 of Merial objects to Paragraph 40 of the Amended Complaint to the extent it calls for Court. However, to the extent a response is required, Merial denies the allegations contained in Paragraph Merial objects to Paragraph 41 of the Amended Complaint to the extent it calls for Court. However, to the extent a response is required, Merial denies the allegations contained in Paragraph Merial objects to Paragraph 42 of the Amended Complaint to the extent it calls for Court. However, to the extent a response is required, Merial denies the allegations contained in Paragraph Merial objects to Paragraph 43 of the Amended Complaint to the extent it calls for Court. However, to the extent a response is required, Merial denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 43 and specifically denies that it had any relationship with the online distributors listed in Paragraph 43 of the Amended Complaint. 44. Merial denies that it engaged in or conspired to engage in any conduct to defraud veterinarians, pet care professionals, American pet owners, or the plaintiffs. Merial is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Merial denies that it engaged in or conspired to engage in any conduct to defraud veterinarians, pet care professionals, American pet owners, or the plaintiffs. Merial is without 9
10 Case 4:09-cv WAP-DAS Document 90 Filed 08/09/10 Page 10 of 18 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 45, including the allegations contained in footnote Merial objects to Paragraph 46 of the Amended Complaint to the extent it calls for Court. However, to the extent a response is required, Merial denies that it engaged in any scheme to defraud veterinarians, pet care professionals, American consumers, or the plaintiffs and, therefore, denies all allegations contained in Paragraph Merial objects to Paragraph 47 of the Amended Complaint to the extent it calls for Court. However, to the extent a response is required, Merial denies that it disseminated false and misleading information to veterinarians, denies that it engaged in any fraudulent activity and, therefore, denies all allegations contained in Paragraph Merial objects to Paragraph 48 of the Amended Complaint to the extent it calls for Court. However, to the extent a response is required, Merial denies that any of its HEARTGARD Brand Products were advertised in a false or misleading manner, denies that it had any relationship with the online distributors referenced in Paragraph 48 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 48. By way of further response, Merial states that all HEARTGARD Brand Products are available by prescription only and, therefore, Merial does not sell the products to any online distributors. 49. Merial objects to Paragraph 49 of the Amended Complaint including all subparts (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e), to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Merial refers all questions of law to the Court. However, to the extent a response is 10
11 Case 4:09-cv WAP-DAS Document 90 Filed 08/09/10 Page 11 of 18 required, Merial denies that it committed any acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1961, et seq. Merial specifically denies that it made any false, fraudulent or misleading representations with respect to any of the HEARTGARD Brand Products, denies that it engaged in a scheme to defraud and, therefore, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 49, including all subparts (a) through (e). 50. Merial denies that it committed any wrongful act in violation of RICO, denies that it disseminated false and misleading advertisements and promotional materials and, therefore, denies all of the allegations contained in Paragraph Merial objects to Paragraph 51 of the Amended Complaint to the extent it calls for Court. However, to the extent a response is required, Merial denies that it committed any acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(a) and, therefore, denies all allegations contained in Paragraph Merial objects to Paragraph 52 of the Amended Complaint to the extent it calls for Court. However, to the extent a response is required, Merial denies that it committed any acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) and, therefore, denies all allegations contained in Paragraph Merial objects to Paragraph 53 of the Amended Complaint to the extent it calls for Court. However, to the extent a response is required, Merial denies that it committed any acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) and, therefore, denies all allegations contained in Paragraph Merial objects to Paragraph 54 of the Amended Complaint to the extent it calls for Court. However, to the extent a response is required, Merial denies that it committed any acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) and, therefore, denies all allegations contained in Paragraph
12 Case 4:09-cv WAP-DAS Document 90 Filed 08/09/10 Page 12 of Merial objects to Paragraph 55 of the Amended Complaint to the extent it calls for Court. However, to the extent a response is required, Merial denies the allegations contained in Paragraph Merial denies the allegations contained in Paragraph Merial denies the allegations contained in Paragraph Merial denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 58 and expressly states that the plaintiffs and their claims do not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b). 59. Merial objects to Paragraph 59 of the Amended Complaint to the extent it calls for Court. However, to the extent a response is required, Merial denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 59 and expressly states that the plaintiffs and their claims do not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b) and that creating issue classes or subclasses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c) will not cure the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b) deficiencies. Alternatively, to the extent that this Court determines the plaintiffs and their claims satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b), Merial admits that subclassing will be necessary but denies that only one subclass will be sufficient. 60. Merial denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 60 and expressly states that the plaintiffs and their claims do not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b) and that creating issue classes or subclasses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c) will not cure the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b) deficiencies. 61. Merial denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 61 and expressly states that the plaintiffs and their claims do not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b) and that 12
13 Case 4:09-cv WAP-DAS Document 90 Filed 08/09/10 Page 13 of 18 creating issues classes or subclasses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c) will not cure the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b) deficiencies. 62. Merial denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 62 and expressly states that the plaintiffs and their claims do not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b) and that creating issue classes or subclasses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c) will not cure the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b) deficiencies. Alternatively, to the extent that this Court determines the plaintiffs and their claims satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b), Merial admits that the individuals and entities listed in Paragraph 62 should be excluded from any class or subclass. 63. Merial denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 63 and expressly states that the plaintiffs and their claims do not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b) and that creating issue classes or subclasses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c) will not cure the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b) deficiencies. 64. Merial is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the allegations contained in the second sentence of Paragraph 64. Merial denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 64 and expressly states that the plaintiffs and their claims do not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b) and that creating issue classes or subclasses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c) will not cure the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b) deficiencies. 65. Merial denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 65, including subparts (a) and (b), and expressly states that the plaintiffs and their claims do not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b) and that creating issue classes or subclasses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c) will not cure the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b) deficiencies. 13
14 Case 4:09-cv WAP-DAS Document 90 Filed 08/09/10 Page 14 of Merial denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 66 and expressly states that the plaintiffs and their claims do not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b) and that creating issue classes or subclasses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c) will not cure the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b) deficiencies. 67. Merial denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 67, including all subparts (a), (b), (c), and (d), and expressly states that the plaintiffs and their claims do not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b), that creating issue classes or subclasses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c) will not cure the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b) deficiencies, and that the common legal and factual issues, if any, do not predominate over the individual legal and factual issues. 68. Merial denies the allegations contained in the unnumbered paragraph that appears after Paragraph 67 and begins with the word WHEREFORE and ends with the word circumstances, including subparts 1., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6., and 7. THIRD DEFENSE The plaintiffs claims against Merial may be prescribed or otherwise barred in whole or in part by applicable statutes of limitation. FOURTH DEFENSE Merial affirmatively pleads Mississippi Code Ann for an allocation of fault, if any, to all individuals or entities whose acts or omissions may have contributed to cause the incidents described in the Amended Complaint and/or the plaintiffs alleged injuries, whether the same be parties or non-parties. To the extent the plaintiffs own acts or omissions caused or contributed to the circumstances and injuries alleged in the Amended Complaint, Merial invokes the provisions of Miss. Code Ann
15 Case 4:09-cv WAP-DAS Document 90 Filed 08/09/10 Page 15 of 18 FIFTH DEFENSE The injuries and damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiffs in this action, if any, were not proximately caused by the use of the HEARTGARD Brand Products or by any acts or omissions on the part of Merial. SIXTH DEFENSE The injuries and damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiffs in this action, if any, were not proximately caused by the use of the HEARTGARD Brand Products or by any acts or omissions on the part of Merial. SEVENTH DEFENSE The plaintiffs claims against Merial should be dismissed or, alternatively, the claims for alleged damages should be reduced for any failures by the plaintiffs in the proper administration of the HEARTGARD Brand Products in accordance with its specific labeled directions and instructions. EIGHTH DEFENSE The plaintiffs have failed to comply with Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as certain matters have not been pled with the requisite particularity. Accordingly, they are barred from recovering any such damages. NINTH DEFENSE Some or all of the plaintiffs claims are barred due to preemption by federal law, including federal statutes and regulations. 15
16 Case 4:09-cv WAP-DAS Document 90 Filed 08/09/10 Page 16 of 18 TENTH DEFENSE The plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the advertisements with respect to HEARTGARD Brand Products were not false or misleading and, therefore, constitute protected commercial speech under the applicable provisions of the United States Constitution. ELEVENTH DEFENSE The plaintiffs claims for punitive damages are barred by Miss. Code Ann (1972), requiring that any suit for penalty be brought within one year from the date of the alleged offense. TWELFTH DEFENSE Merial affirmatively pleads all rights and defenses provided by Miss. Code Ann with respect to plaintiffs claim for punitive damages. THIRTEENTH DEFENSE Any award of punitive damages against Merial in this action would violate the constitutional rights of Merial under the United States Constitution and the Mississippi Constitution in at least the following respects: (a) (b) (c) (d) It would violate Merial s right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and due process under Section Fourteen of the Mississippi Constitution; It would violate Merial s right to substantive due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and under Section Fourteen of the Mississippi Constitution; It would violate federal and state due process unless the plaintiffs are required to prove every element of their claim for punitive damages beyond a reasonable doubt; Mississippi laws on punitive damages are unconstitutionally vague, not rationally related to any legitimate governmental interest, and establish no consistent, recognizable, or rational standard for submitting punitive damage issues to a jury or for appellate review; 16
17 Case 4:09-cv WAP-DAS Document 90 Filed 08/09/10 Page 17 of 18 (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) It would violate Merial s right not to be subjected to an excessive award in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section Twenty-Eight of the Mississippi Constitution; It would violate the prohibitions of the United States Constitution and the Mississippi Constitution on ex post facto laws; It would violate the right of Merial to equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Mississippi Constitution; Being in the nature of a penal or criminal sanction, any award of punitive damages that does not provide Merial with the procedural and substantive safeguards applicable to criminal proceedings and would violate the United States Constitution and the Mississippi Constitution; Merial affirmatively pleads all rights and defenses provided by BMW of North America. Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), and its progeny with respect to any claim the plaintiffs make for punitive damages, including, but not limited to, the prohibition against awarding punitive damages for alleged conduct of Merial outside the State of Mississippi; and Merial affirmatively pleads all rights and defenses provided by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), and its progeny. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Merial requests that the Court dismiss all claims against it with prejudice and provide Merial with such other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, this the 9th day of August, /s/:michael E. McWilliams Lee Davis Thames (MB #8061) Michael E. McWilliams (MB #8733) Kyle V. Miller (MB #102227) COUNSEL FOR MERIAL 17
18 Case 4:09-cv WAP-DAS Document 90 Filed 08/09/10 Page 18 of 18 OF COUNSEL: Lee Davis Thames (MB #8061) Michael E. McWilliams (MB #8733) Kyle V. Miller (MB #102227) Butler, Snow, O Mara, Stevens & Cannada, PLLC 1020 Highland Colony Parkway, Suite 1400 P.O. Box 6010 Ridgeland, MS Tel: Fax: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael E. McWilliams, one of the attorneys for Merial, do hereby certify that I have this day filed with the Court s ECF system a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument and that a copy of same will be electronically delivered to the following: C. W. Walker, III, Esq. Heath S. Douglas, Esq. Lake Tindall, LLP 127 South Poplar Street P.O. Box 918 Greenville, MS Lawrence E. Abernathy, III, Esq. 420 North Sixth Avenue Laurel, MS SO CERTIFIED this the 9th day of August, /s/:michael E. McWilliams Michael E. McWilliams Jackson v1 18
Case 3:16-cv DPJ-FKB Document 9 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 11
Case 3:16-cv-00657-DPJ-FKB Document 9 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION KIMBERLY V. BRACEY VS. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/ :24 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2016 11:24 AM INDEX NO. 190043/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X JOHN D. FIEDERLEIN AND
More informationCase 2:17-cv EEF-MBN Document 66 Filed 11/07/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:17-cv-06197-EEF-MBN Document 66 Filed 11/07/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ADRIAN CALISTE AND BRIAN GISCLAIR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
David L. Kagel (Calif. Bar No. 1 John Torbett (Calif. State Bar No. Law Offices of David Kagel, PLC 01 Century Park East, th Floor Los Angeles, CA 00 Telephone: ( -00 Fax: ( - Attorneys Admitted Pro Hac
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/ :54 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2016 02:54 PM INDEX NO. 190047/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X NORMAN DOIRON AND ELAINE
More informationSTATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ) THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COUNTY OF GREENVILLE ) CASE NO.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COUNTY OF GREENVILLE CASE NO. 2016-CP-23-0290 S. ODELL HUNTER, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CAROL WATSON
More informationCase 8:13-cv JSM-AEP Document 17 Filed 01/14/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 64 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:13-cv-03084-JSM-AEP Document 17 Filed 01/14/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 64 SHELENE JEAN-LOUIS, JUDES PETIT-FRERE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/ :47 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2015
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/2015 01:47 PM INDEX NO. 190350/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK In RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
More informationCase 1:17-cv PBS Document 24 Filed 05/26/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:17-cv-10356-PBS Document 24 Filed 05/26/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS JONATHAN MONSARRAT, v. Plaintiff, GOTPER6067-00001and DOES 1-5, dba ENCYCLOPEDIADRAMATICA.SE,
More informationCase 3:17-cv DPJ-FKB Document 5 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 15
Case 3:17-cv-00270-DPJ-FKB Document 5 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION TINA L. WALLACE PLAINTIFF VS. CITY OF JACKSON,
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/28/ :04 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/28/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/28/2016 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 190293/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/28/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X VINCENT ASCIONE, v. ALCOA,
More informationR. BRIAN DIXON, Bar No LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Case :-cv-000-jgb-rao Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 R. BRIAN DIXON, Bar No. 0 bdixon@littler.com Bush Street, th Floor San Francisco, CA 0 Telephone:..0 Facsimile:..0 DOUGLAS A. WICKHAM, Bar
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/ :49 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2015
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2015 03:49 PM INDEX NO. 190202/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK In RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CASE NO.: 1:15-CV LCB-LPA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:15-cv-00519-LCB-LPA Document 14 Filed 09/08/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CASE NO.: 1:15-CV-00519-LCB-LPA THOMAS E. PEREZ, Secretary
More informationCase LSS Doc 5 Filed 09/20/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 17-50951-LSS Doc 5 Filed 09/20/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: VIOLIN MEMORY, INC., Debtor. CORY S. SINDELAR and SHEON KAROL, as Distribution
More informationCase 5:15-cv BLF Document 1 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 18
Case :-cv-00-blf Document Filed /0/ Page of BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. ) Julia A. Luster (State Bar No. 0) North California Boulevard, Suite 0 Walnut Creek, CA Telephone: ()
More informationCase 4:17-cv PJH Document 61 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 33
Case :-cv-0-pjh Document Filed 0// Page of Brenda A. Prackup Law Office of Brenda A. Prackup 000 MacArthur Blvd. East Tower, th Floor Newport Beach, CA 0 Tel:.. Email: brenda@baplawoffice.com Attorney
More information3:13-cv JFA Date Filed 04/04/13 Entry Number 4 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
3:13-cv-00882-JFA Date Filed 04/04/13 Entry Number 4 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Charles Smith, individually and as Parent of Minor
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/ :02 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------- x IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION NYCAL --------------------------------------------------------------------
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA ELECTRONICALLY FILED 12/17/2012 2:06 PM CV-2012-901531.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA FLORENCE CAUTHEN, CLERK INNOVATION SPORTS & ) ENTERTAINMENT,
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/11/ :17 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/11/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------x Index No.: 655023/2016 DAWN JONES, DDS and EXCLUSIVE DENTAL STUDIOS, PLLC. d/b/a
More informationCase3:13-cv SI Document11 Filed03/26/13 Page1 of 17
Case:-cv-000-SI Document Filed0// Page of CHRISTOPHER J. BORDERS (SBN: 0 cborders@hinshawlaw.com AMY K. JENSEN (SBN: ajensen@hinshawlaw.com HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP One California Street, th Floor San
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/ :33 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2016
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2016 0433 PM INDEX NO. 190115/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 RECEIVED NYSCEF 06/07/2016 LYNCH DASKAL EMERY LLP 137 West 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10001 (212) 302-2400
More informationCase: 25CH1:15-cv Document #: 7 Filed: 10/05/2015 Page 1 of 16
Case: 25CH1:15-cv-001479 Document #: 7 Filed: 10/05/2015 Page 1 of 16 IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI MISSISSIPPI FAIR COMMISSION PLAINTIFF VS. CIVIL ACTION
More informationCase Doc 19 Filed 06/01/16 Entered 06/01/16 14:19:45 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Document Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS In re: ) Chapter 11 Cases ) TELEXFREE, LLC. ) 14-40987-MSH TELEXFREE, INC, and ) 14-40988-MSH TELEXFRESS FINANCIAL, INC. )
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT YAKIMA
Case :-cv-000-smj ECF No. filed // PageID.00 Page of Brendan V. Sullivan, Jr. Steven M. Cady WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 000 Tel.: 0-- scady@wc.com Maren R. Norton 00
More informationDefendant, Prevost Car (US) Inc., Individually and as. Successor to Nova Bus, by its attorneys, MAIMONE & ASSOCIATES,
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/08/2016 11:03 PM INDEX NO. 190300/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/08/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------X
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:16-cv-02509-JNE-FLN Document 1 Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA IN RE: Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Products Liability Litigation This Document Relates
More informationCase 3:16-cv CWR-FKB Document 79 Filed 01/06/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:16-cv-00246-CWR-FKB Document 79 Filed 01/06/17 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION JEFFERY A. STALLWORTH VS. PLAINTIFF CIVIL
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/05/ :37 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/05/2014
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/05/2014 12:37 PM INDEX NO. 156171/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/05/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------------X
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION CASE NO.: 11-CV WPD
Rice et al v. Lucky Brand Dungarees Stores, Inc. Doc. 11 LORILYNN RICE, KRISTEN GURDAK, GABRIEL AGUILAR BRITTANY SOTO, and LAUREN TAYLOR, on their own behalves and other similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 2:12-cv APG-PAL Document 168 Filed 04/16/14 Page 1 of 12
Case :-cv-00-apg-pal Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Ryan W. Mitchem (TN #0) Michael K. Alston (TN #0) Kathryn Ann Reilly (CO #) HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP Georgia Avenue, Suite 00 Chattanooga, Tennessee 0 Telephone:
More informationCase 4:06-cv WTM-GRS Document 116 Filed 02/04/08 Page 1 of 13
Case 4:06-cv-00096-WTM-GRS Document 116 Filed 02/04/08 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, GENESIS DESIGNER
More informationCase 3:15-cv RGJ-KLH Document 38 Filed 11/25/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 257 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 3:15-cv-02907-RGJ-KLH Document 38 Filed 11/25/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 257 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JOSEPH HENDERSON, SR. * CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:15CV02907 * VERSUS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION
Case :-cv-0-tln-kjn Document Filed /0/ Page of 0 0 0 John E. Norris Davis & Norris, LLP Highland Ave. S. Birmingham, AL 0 0-0-00 Fax: 0-0- jnorris@davisnorris.com IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
More informationCase 1:07-cv GMS Document 25 Filed 11/19/2007 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:07-cv-00228-GMS Document 25 Filed 11/19/2007 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JEFFREY D. HILL, : : Plaintiff, : : C.A. No. 07-228 (GMS) v. : : JURY TRIAL
More informationHUSHHUSH ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
PlainSite Legal Document Florida Southern District Court Case No. 1:15-cv-23888 HUSHHUSH ENTERTAINMENT, INC. v. Mindgeek USA, Inc. et al Document 27 View Document View Docket A joint project of Think Computer
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil Case No.: 18-cv (WMW/SER)
CASE 0:18-cv-02420-ECT-SER Document 24 Filed 08/30/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil Case No.: 18-cv-02420 (WMW/SER) FRIDAY & COX, LLC, Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS' JOINT
More informationCase 2:15-cv CMR Document 6 Filed 03/28/16 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:15-cv-06132-CMR Document 6 Filed 03/28/16 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL MACDONALD Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:15-cv-06132-CMR JURY
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/08/2013 INDEX NO /2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/08/2013
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/08/2013 INDEX NO. 151360/2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/08/2013 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK STEPHEN MOLINARI, Index No.: 151360/12
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY RUBIE ELLIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1316-CV04606 ) Division 14 KANSAS CITY 33 SCHOOL ) DISTRICT, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) ANSWER
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION. Plaintiff, Defendant.
2:10-cv-03075-RMG Date Filed 02/25/11 Entry Number 22 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Righthaven LLC, Dana Eiser, v. Plaintiff, Defendant. Civil
More informationCase: 1:12-cv Document #: 21 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case: 1:12-cv-00640 Document #: 21 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS RUDE MUSIC, INC. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) NO.: 1:12-cv-00640
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY. Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (hereinafter FedEx Ground ), by and
THE HONORABLE BRUCE HELLER SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY MITCH SPENCER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, No. --00- SEA v. Plaintiff, ACTION COMPLAINT FEDEX GROUND
More informationDEFENDANTS' VERIFIED ANSWER
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2016 11:34 AM INDEX NO. 154310/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK x KRISHNA DEBYSINGH, -against-
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION. Case No. 3:18-CV FDW-DSC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION JAMES SEITZ, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LAUREN E. SEITZ, DECEASED, Case No. 3:18-CV-00044-FDW-DSC v.
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/ :13 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2016 11:13 AM INDEX NO. 157868/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationCase 1:18-cv PGG Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:18-cv-09820-PGG Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RAUL GARCIA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Case
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/ :46 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO Assunte Catazano a/k/a Sue Catazano, as Personal INDEX NO. 190298-16 Representative
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT WOLFE STYKE, Plaintiff, v. MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY and RUSSELL J. NOVELLO, Civil Action No. MICV2010-03849
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/07/ :53 PM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/07/2015
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/07/2015 03:53 PM INDEX NO. 158552/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/07/2015 SUPREME COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 11-15 EAST
More informationCase5:09-cv JW Document106 Filed04/22/10 Page1 of 9
Case:0-cv-0-JW Document0 Filed0//0 Page of 0 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 0) charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com Melissa J. Baily (Bar No. ) melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2014 INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2014
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2014 INDEX NO. 190087/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ALL COUNTIES WITHIN NEW YORK CITY ------------------------------------------------------------------------X
More informationCourthouse News Service
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------X JANE DOE, -against- Plaintiff, COUNTY OF ULSTER, ULSTER COUNTY SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT,
More informationCase5:02-cv JF Document3 Filed11/06/02 Page1 of 14
Case:0-cv-0-JF Document Filed/0/0 Page of JAMES R. HAWLEY -- BAR NO. 0 KATHRYN CHOW BAR NO. 0 HOGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL, INC. Sixty South Market Street, Suite 00 San Jose, California - Phone: (0) -0
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Defendant.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. ) Julia A. Luster (State Bar No. 01) 10 North California Boulevard, Suite 0 Walnut Creek, CA Telephone: () 00- Facsimile: () 0-00 E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
More informationFILED: ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 01/23/ :02 PM
FILED: ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2017 12:02 PM INDEX NO. EFCA2016-002373 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ONEIDA FRANK JAKUBOWKI AND GLORIA
More informationCourthouse News Service
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 4385 Filed 10/29/2008 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY SHANNON BATY, on behalf of herself and : Case No.: all others similarly situated, : :
More informationFILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/16/ :12 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 57 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNT OF KINGS -------------------------------------------------------------------------X X ALFONSO GARCIA, Index No.: 502202/2014 Plaintiff, -against- WHITE PLAINS
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/25/ :15 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/25/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK EVA SCRIVO FIFTH AVENUE, INC., vs. Plaintiff, ANNIE RUSH and COSETTE FIFTH AVENUE, LLC, Defendants. Index No. 656723/2016 VERIFIED ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI HATTIESBURG DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO.
Henry v. Google, Inc. et al Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI HATTIESBURG DIVISION JOHNNY ISHMEL HENRY PLAINTIFF VS. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:09CV99-KS-MTP
More informationVs : C.A. NO. WC ANSWER AND COUNTER-CLAIM
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPERIOR COURT WASHINGTON, Sc. ANDREW R. BILODEAU : Plaintiff : : Vs : C.A. NO. WC06-0673 : JONATHAN DALY-LABELLE, Alias : Defendant : ANSWER AND COUNTER-CLAIM Defendant, Jonathan
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/ :32 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 164 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK VERIFIED REPLY TO 89 BOWERY AND HUA YANG'S COUNTERCLAIMS IN VERIFIED AMENDED ANSWER Index No. 150738/2017 Plaintiff, 93 BOWERY HOLDINGS LLC ("93
More informationCase 1:16-cv LGS Document 21 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:16-cv-00934-LGS Document 21 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Laspata DeCaro Studio Corporation, Case No: 1:16-cv-00934-LGS - against - Plaintiff,
More informationSTATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF CHARLESTON ) NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF CHARLESTON ) NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ) Peter T. Phillips, ) Civil Action No. 15-CP-10- ) Plaintiff ) vs. ) COMPLAINT ) (Jury Trial Requested)
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08cv600-HSO-LRA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION DANIEL B. O'KEEFE, CELESTE A. FOSTER O'KEEFE, and THE DANCEL GROUP, INC. VS. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, and MARSHALL
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/ :55 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o Index No.: 152491/2017 ROCKROSE DEVELOPMENT CORP., Plaintiff, VERIFIED ANSWER TO CROSS-CLAIMS OF -against- THIRD-PARTY
More informationCase 4:18-cv JSW Document 14 Filed 02/23/18 Page 1 of 13. Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF VALLEJO, JARRETT TONN, KEVIN BARRETO, and SEAN KENNEY
Case :-cv-00-jsw Document Filed 0// Page of CLAUDIA M. QUINTANA City Attorney, SBN BY: KATELYN M. KNIGHT Deputy City Attorney, SBN CITY OF VALLEJO, City Hall Santa Clara Street, P.O. Box 0 Vallejo, CA
More informationAttorneys for Defendant SAK CONSTRUCTION, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
GARY V. ABBOTT, Oregon State Bar Number 720072 E-mail address: gabbott@abbott-law.com US Bancorp Tower, Suite 2650 111 Southwest Fifth Avenue Telephone: Facsimile : (503) 595-9519 Attorneys for Defendant
More informationCase 7:18-cv Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 7:18-cv-00321 Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARTIN ORBACH and PHILLIP SEGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
More information1:15-cv JMC Date Filed 04/06/15 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
1:15-cv-01511-JMC Date Filed 04/06/15 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION Robert K. Besley, Jr., on behalf of himself ) and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
Young v. Reed Elsevier, Inc. et al Doc. 4 Case 9:07-cv-80031-DMM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/17/2007 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
More informationIN THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI FIRST DEFENSE
IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ex rei. ATTORNEY GENERA JIM HOOD v. GOVERNOR HALEY BAROUR PILED PLAITIFF JAN - 9 2008 CIVIL Ar.TTON
More informationCase 1:13-cv NMG Document 25 Filed 01/27/14 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUETTS
Case 1:13-cv-12631-NMG Document 25 Filed 01/27/14 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUETTS FRED MCCLURE, Derivatively on Behalf of RUSSELL COMMODITY STRATEGIES FUND, RUSSELL EMERGING
More informationCase 2:13-cv CG-WPL Document 17 Filed 09/18/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Case 2:13-cv-00727-CG-WPL Document 17 Filed 09/18/13 Page 1 of 10 DAVID ECKERT Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO vs. No. 2:13-cv-00727-CG/WPL THE CITY OF DEMING. DEMING
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/30/ :06 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------x LEROY BAKER, Index No.: 190058/2017 Plaintiff, -against- AF SUPPLY USA INC.,
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/ :23 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2015
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2015 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 190245/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------X
More informationCase 2:15-cv DBP Document 26 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 20
Case 2:15-cv-00102-DBP Document 26 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 20 John A. Anderson (#4464) jaanderson@stoel.com Timothy K. Conde (#10118) tkconde@stoel.com STOEL RIVES LLP 201 South Main Street, Suite 1100
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION CHASE BARFIELD, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:11-cv-4321NKL ) SHO-ME POWER ELECTRIC ) COOPERATIVE,
More informationCase 1:12-cv DJC Document 36 Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:12-cv-11280-DJC Document 36 Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x KAREN L. BACCHI,
More informationIN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO CIVIL DIVISION. DAVID ESRATI : Case No CV Plaintiff, : Judge Richard Skelton
ELECTRONICALLY FILED COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Wednesday, March 7, 2018 11:47:51 AM CASE NUMBER: 2018 CV 00593 Docket ID: 31942993 RUSSELL M JOSEPH CLERK OF COURTS MONTGOMERY COUNTY OHIO IN THE COMMON PLEAS
More informationCase: 1:15-cv SJD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/03/15 Page: 1 of 18 PAGEID #: 284
Case 115-cv-00088-SJD Doc # 11 Filed 04/03/15 Page 1 of 18 PAGEID # 284 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION (CINCINNATI) JEFFREY DECKER and MARIA DECKER, vs.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION
Case 2:09-cv-00464-GLF-NMK Document 51 Filed 12/21/09 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION JOHN D. FRESHWATER, et al. : : Case No. 2:09cv464
More informationCASE 0:17-cv JNE-FLN Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Sheffield Edwards, III
CASE 0:17-cv-02125-JNE-FLN Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA IN RE: Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 15-2666 (JNE/FLN)
More informationCase 2:12-cv MSD-TEM Document 4 Filed 12/26/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 25
Case 2:12-cv-00642-MSD-TEM Document 4 Filed 12/26/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division LAUREN GREY-IGEL, on behalf of : Herself and all
More informationCase: 1:10-cv Document #: 47 Filed: 03/07/11 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:580
Case: 1:10-cv-03361 Document #: 47 Filed: 03/07/11 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:580 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES of AMERICA ex rel. LINDA NICHOLSON,
More informationCase 1:15-cv RP Document 13 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Case 1:15-cv-00821-RP Document 13 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION DEEP ELLUM BREWING COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK GLO SCIENCE, INC. ) a Delaware Corporation ) 10 W 37 th Street, Suite 1001 ) New York, NY 10018 ) ) Civil Action No. Plaintiff,
More informationKanter v. California Administrative Office of the Courts Doc. 10 Case 3:07-cv MJJ Document 10 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 1 of 13
Kanter v. California Administrative Office of the Courts Doc. Case :0-cv-0-MJJ Document Filed 0/0/00 Page of 0 PATRICIA K. GILLETTE (Bar No. ) GREG J. RICHARDSON (Bar No. 0) BROOKE D. ANDRICH (Bar No.
More informationCase 5:10-cv C Document 1 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:10-cv-00810-C Document 1 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ROBERT RENNIE, JR., on behalf of } himself and all others similarly
More informationSummons SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WAYNE X
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WAYNE --------------------------------------------------------------------X JANET E. ENOCH, STEVE O. HINDI, AND MICHAEL KOBLISKA, - against Plaintiff(s),
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/ :20 PM INDEX NO /2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2018
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC C.K. Lee (2903557) Anne Seelig (4192803) 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel.: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 Attorneys for Plaintiff SUPREME COURT OF THE
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/13/ :43 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------- x CYNTHIA CEBALLOS, Index No. 160696/2016 Plaintiff, CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA, INC.,
More informationCase 2:06-cv SSV-SS Document 682 Filed 10/08/10 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:06-cv-04091-SSV-SS Document 682 Filed 10/08/10 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL. BRANCH CONSULTANTS, L.L.C. VERSUS * CIVIL
More informationCase: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/17 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1
Case: 1:17-cv-05069 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/17 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BARTOSZ GRABOWSKI, ) ) Plaintiff, )
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/19/2012 INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/19/2012
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/19/2012 INDEX NO. 100061/2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135 RECEIVED NYSCEF 07/19/2012 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More informationCase 3:15-cv DRH-DGW Document 8 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case 3:15-cv-00775-DRH-DGW Document 8 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CATHY JOHNSON and RANDAL ) JOHNSON, on behalf of themselves
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 0//0 0: PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by F. Caldera,Deputy Clerk 0 0 MICHAEL J. KUMP (SBN 00) mkump@kwikalaw.com
More informationPlaintiffs, by their attorney, NORA CONSTANCE MARINO, ESQ. complaining of the defendants herein, respectfully show this Court, and allege
NEW YORK STATE COURT OF CLAIMS --------------------------------------------------------------X JANET E. ENOCH, STEVE O. HINDI, and MICHAEL KOBLISKA, Claimants, -against- THE STATE OF NEW YORK, T. D AMATO,
More informationCase 3:08-cv CRB Document 1 Filed 09/02/2008 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:08-cv-04154-CRB Document 1 Filed 09/02/2008 Page 1 of 1 https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?480403656344617-l_567_0-1 9/3/2008 SDNY CM/ECF Version 3.2.1 Page 1 of 6 Case 3:08-cv-04154-CRB
More information