Case 1:10-cv WDQ Document 14-1 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
|
|
- Bertha Atkinson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 1:10-cv WDQ Document 14-1 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ASSATEAGUE COASTKEEPER, et al. v. Plaintiffs, ALAN AND KRISTIN HUDSON FARM, et al. Defendants. Civil No. 1: 1 0-cv WDQ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF HUDSON FARM S MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant Alan & Kristin Hudson Farm ( Hudson Farm, by its attorneys, submits this Memorandum in support of its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b(1 and 12(b(6 because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the Complaint fails to state a claim against Hudson Farm. I. INTRODUCTION This is case of mistaken identity that demonstrates the danger of assumptions. In December 2009, Plaintiff Kathy Phillips flew over Hudson Farm and observed from the air a pile of material on the farm which she, and the other Plaintiffs in this action, assumed was chicken manure. Without bothering to confirm this assumption, Plaintiffs immediately sent a Notice of Intent to Sue ( the NOI to Hudson Farm on December 17, 2009 accusing it and co-defendant Perdue Farms Incorporated ( Perdue of creating a longstanding manure pile that discharges pollutants via trenches into a field ditch in violation of the Clean Water Act ( the CWA. In that letter, Plaintiffs further stated their intention to file suit at the end of the mandatory 60 day notice period under the / /29/2010
2 Case 1:10-cv WDQ Document 14-1 Filed 03/29/10 Page 2 of 11 CWA. Although unstated in the NOI, the CWA requires the 60 day period to allow parties to remediate the alleged violations. During the 60 day remediation period, several facts about this matter became public record: 1 the material Ms. Phillips observed on Hudson Farm was not, in fact, chicken manure, but instead biosolid material Hudson Farm lawfully received from the town of Ocean City s Wastewater Treatment Plant for use in assisting crop production; 2 upon its receipt of the NOI, the Maryland Department of the Environment ( MDE promptly investigated the situation at Hudson Farm and Hudson Farm, under MDE s instructions, relocated the biosolid pile and filled in the trenches; and 3 once this work was complete, MDE concluded that no further action is required on [the Farm s] part other than to spread the [biosolid pile] in the spring for the next crop growing season. Undeterred by their false assumption that the biosolid pile was chicken manure and unsatisfied by Hudson Farm s prompt compliance with MDE s instructions, Plaintiffs have chosen to file this suit anyway. But they have done so in disregard of the CWA s notice requirements and basic federal court pleading standards. In sum, the lawsuit goes far beyond the specific facts alleged in the NOI and is fatally flawed as a result. As is explained in more detail below, and in the Motion to Dismiss and supporting Memorandum filed concurrently by Perdue, this Court should dismiss Plaintiffs complaint on several grounds. First, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case because the prerequisite for the Court s jurisdiction the NOI gives notice of alleged violations (the manure pile that never existed and were in any event corrected by Hudson Farm under MDE s instruction. The lawsuit instead asserts broader -2-
3 Case 1:10-cv WDQ Document 14-1 Filed 03/29/10 Page 3 of 11 violations of the CWA about which Plaintiffs have never given Hudson Farm notice. The NOI is fatally flawed in other respects in that it fails to allege violations of the CWA with sufficient specificity. This Court should also dismiss Plaintiffs complaint because Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate an injury in fact under the CWA and their standing to maintain this action. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Hudson Farm adopts and incorporates by reference the facts and exhibits submitted by Perdue in its Motion to Dismiss and supporting Memorandum ( the Perdue Memorandum. 1 Hudson Farm is family-owned and operated farm consisting of 300 acres in Worcester County, Maryland at 9178 Old Ocean City Road, Berlin, Maryland See Affidavit of Alan Hudson, attached as Exhibit 1, at 2. Alan and Kristin Hudson own the farm, which has been in the Hudson family for over 100 years. Id. Mr. Hudson grew up on the farm. Id. Mr. Hudson s parents, Roger and Mary Alice Hudson, operated the farm before Mr. Hudson and his wife. Id. Today, Mr. Hudson and his father principally work on the farm now, with occasional help from Kristin Hudson. Id. Other than seasonal help in the summer, the Farm has no other employees. Id. The Farm s operations consist of several fields used for growing corn, soybeans and hay, two poultry houses, approximately 40 cows (primarily beef cows, a small number of sheep and two horses. Id. at 3. Mr. Hudson and his wife live in house 1 A court may rely on evidence outside the pleadings in deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed pursuant to Rule 12(b(1. Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4 th Cir Therefore, in addition to documents referenced and relied on by Plaintiffs in the Complaint, the Court may take into account government records, admissions by the Plaintiffs and other documents referenced in this and Perdue s Memorandum. -3-
4 Case 1:10-cv WDQ Document 14-1 Filed 03/29/10 Page 4 of 11 adjacent to the Farm located at 9101 Logtown Road, Berlin, Maryland with their two young children. Id. On or about December 18, 2009, Hudson Farm received the NOI from the Waterkeeper s Alliance. See NOI, attached as Exhibit 2. The NOI described a longstanding manure pile in the farm s production area that discharges pollutants into a field ditch that drains to the Franklin Branch. Id; Exhibit 1 at 4. The NOI further described discrete conveyances in the form of trenches... from the stockpile to the field ditch to facilitate this run off. Id. The stockpile referred to by the Waterkeeper s is not, in fact, poultry manure, but rather treated biosolids ( the biosolid pile delivered to Hudson Farm by the town of Ocean City, Maryland from its Wastewater Treatment Plant. Exhibit 1 at 5. In an effort to find a use for these biosolids, Ocean City distributes this material at no charge to local farms. Id. The material is used as a substitute for lime to condition the soils in farm fields to assist crop production. Id. The farm has received deliveries of biosolid material from Ocean City since approximately March 2009, and received the biosolid pile in question in approximately August Id. On or about December 19, 2009, the day after Hudson Farm received the Notice of Intent, Brian Littlefield of MDE visited the Farm. Id. Under MDE s instruction, Hudson Farm regraded a different location on the farm selected by Mr. Littlefield, moved the biosolid pile to that location, covered the biosolid pile, and filled in some small channels (described in the NOI as ditches near the pile s previous location. Id. -4-
5 Case 1:10-cv WDQ Document 14-1 Filed 03/29/10 Page 5 of 11 Subsequent to December 19, 2010, representatives from MDE visited the farm on several different occasions, including January 7 th, January 26 th and January 29 th, See Correspondence from MDE, attached as Exhibit 3. On January 7, 2010, the Farm received notice from MDE that it had complied with all the recommendations of the Department and that no further action is required on [the Farm s] part other than to spread the [biosolid pile] in the spring for the next crop growing season (emphasis added. Id. III. LEGAL STANDARD Hudson Farm moves to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b(1 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 12(b(6 for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs have the burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999; Cambridge Environmental Health and Community Development Group v. City of Cambridge ( City of Cambridge, 115 F. Supp. 2d 550 (D. Md When a defendant challenges subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b(1, the district court is to regard the pleadings as mere evidence on the issue, and may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment. Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d at 647 (quoting Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir A 12(b(1 motion should be granted if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Id. If a Plaintiff does not meet the statutory prerequisites of the CWA citizen suit provision, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. City of Cambridge, 115 F. Supp. 2d at
6 Case 1:10-cv WDQ Document 14-1 Filed 03/29/10 Page 6 of 11 For purposes of a Rule 12(b(6 motion, [t]he pleadings must state 'more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.' Flanagan v. Anne Arundel County, 593 F. Supp. 2d 803, 808 (D. Md (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007. Rather: To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b(6, a plaintiff must plead plausible, not merely conceivable, facts in support of his claim. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007. This plausibility standard applies to all of plaintiffs claims. Flanagan v. Anne Arundel County, 593 F. Supp. 2d 803, 808 (D. Md The facts alleged must be sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Smith v. Smith, 589 F.3d 736, 738 (4th Cir (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice, and allegations in a complaint which are not more than conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S., 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009. The court is not required to accept as true the legal conclusions set forth in a plaintiff s complaint, nor is it required to accept as true unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments. Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008; City of Cambridge, 115 F. Supp. 2d at 553. To the contrary, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 requires a showing, rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3. In short, Rule 8(a contemplates the statement of circumstances, occurrences, and events in support of the claim presented and does not authorize a pleader s bare averment that he wants relief and is entitled to it. Id. (quoting 5 Wright & Miller 1202, at 94,
7 Case 1:10-cv WDQ Document 14-1 Filed 03/29/10 Page 7 of 11 IV. ARGUMENT A plaintiff must meet certain jurisdictional prerequisites in order to bring a citizen suit under the CWA. Plaintiffs in this matter have failed to meet four of these prerequisites. First, the violation about which Plaintiffs gave Notice (the manure pile never existed and in any event has ceased, which denies this court subject matter jurisdiction because there is no ongoing violation as required for a citizens suit under the CWA. Second, Plaintiffs have failed to provide adequate notice of their intent to sue as required by the CWA because the complaint is far broader than the alleged violations which are the subject of the NOI, and because the NOI lacked requisite specificity as the violations it does describe. Third, Plaintiffs have failed to make basic allegations establishing their standing to file suit. Those failures require that the Complaint be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b(1. Finally, Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to assert a claim under the CWA. Therefore, the Complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b(6. A. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction and The Complaint Should be Dismissed Pursuant to Rule 12(b(1 Because There is no Continuing Violation of the Clean Water Act. A CWA citizen suit may be brought only if there is an ongoing violation of the Act that is a violation at the time the complaint is filed. Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 I.S. 49 (1987 (interpreting 33 U.S.C. 1365(a(1(ii. Connecticut Coastal Fishermen s Ass n v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 989 F.2d 1305 (2d Cir Thus, the requirement that there be an ongoing violation is not only an element of the claim that, if not adequately pled, would require dismissal -7-
8 Case 1:10-cv WDQ Document 14-1 Filed 03/29/10 Page 8 of 11 under Rule 12(b(6, it is also jurisdictional. In other words, this matter cannot proceed unless there is an ongoing violation of the CWA. As is demonstrated by Mr. Hudson s Affidavit, correspondence from MDE and the various admissions by Plaintiffs cited in the Perdue Memorandum, the biosolid pile was not in fact chicken manure, and the alleged violation described in the NOI the manure pile never existed. In any event, as is also demonstrated by these documents, any problems with the biosolid pile were rectified to MDE s satisfaction. Accordingly, there can be no continuing violation of the CWA and as a result this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter. Accordingly, the Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b(1. B. Plaintiffs Claims Should be Dismissed Pursuant to Rule 12(b(1 Because Plaintiffs' Notice of Intention to File Suit was Inadequate. Citizen plaintiffs must provide a notice of intent to sue to the alleged violator, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the relevant state enforcement agency at least 60 days prior to actually filing suit. 33 U.S.C. 1365(b(1(A. Notice in citizen suits is a mandatory condition precedent to filing suit. Hallstrom v. Tillamook Cty., 493 U.S. 20, at 26, 31 (1989. Without adequate notice, the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. Community of Cambridge Environmental Health and Community Development Group v. City of Cambridge, 1115 F. Supp. 2d 550 (D. Md Notice must be given in the manner provided by the Administrator of EPA by regulation. 33 U.S.C. 1365(b. There are numerous deficiencies in Plaintiffs' NOI: 1 it fails to provide notice of the violations alleged in the Complaint; 2 it fails to identify dates of violation; 3 it fails to properly identify plaintiffs; 4 it fails to allege violations of the CWA with sufficient -8-
9 Case 1:10-cv WDQ Document 14-1 Filed 03/29/10 Page 9 of 11 specificity as required by the statute; and 5 it fails to provide specific dates of violation of the CWA as required by the statute. Hudson Farms adopts and incorporates by reference the arguments and legal authorities contained in the Perdue Memorandum on the insufficiency of the NOI. C. Plaintiffs Claims Should be Dismissed Pursuant to Rule 12(b(1 Due To Their Lack of Standing Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate standing to bring this suit and this Court should accordingly dismiss it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b(6. Hudson Farm adopts and incorporates by reference the arguments and legal; authorities contained in the Perdue Memorandum on the standing issue. D. The Complaint Should be Dismissed Pursuant to Rule 12(b(6 Because Plaintiffs have Failed to Plead Sufficient Facts to State a Claim under the Clean Water Act. The basic elements of claim under the Clean Water Act are: 1 an unauthorized discharge, 2 of a pollutant, 3 from a point source, 4 to the waters of the United States. See Stephens v Koch Foods, LLC, 667 F.Supp. 2d 768 (E.D. Tenn Plaintiffs have alleged that the Defendants own or operate a CAFO, a point source, from which unauthorized discharges of pollutants to the waters of the United States occurred. See e.g. Complaint, par. 31. However, Plaintiffs say little more than that, providing only conclusory assertions of the elements of their claim, without providing factual details. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice, and allegations in a complaint which are not more than conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 566 U.S., -9-
10 Case 1:10-cv WDQ Document 14-1 Filed 03/29/10 Page 10 of S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009. To the contrary, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 requires a showing, rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3. The defects in Plaintiffs' claim are several. First, because Plaintiffs are undoubtedly aware that the stockpile about which they gave notice on December 17, 2009, was in fact biosolids and not the poultry manure specified in their Notice, the Complaint fails to allege at all that the substance actually discharged from the farm is poultry manure. Instead, Plaintiffs allege that "solid waste, biological materials, and agricultural waste, including fecal coliform, E coli bacteria, nitrogen, phosphorus, ammonia, and nitrates" were discharged. Complaint, par. 55, 60. Because Plaintiffs failed to allege a discharge of poultry manure from the Hudson farm, the Complaint does not properly allege a discharge from a regulated point source. Plaintiffs claim is also insufficient because it does not allege dates on which actual discharges occurred. Instead, Plaintiffs claim to have documented the presence of pollutants in a drainage ditch downstream of the Hudson Farm on 8 occasions. Complaint, par Alleging that one has found pollutants in a drainage ditch on a given date is not the equivalent of alleging a discharge from a point source on a specific date. The mere presence of common agricultural pollutants in a discharge ditch does not state a claim that those pollutants originate from a regulated point source rather than unregulated nonpoint sources that are also in close proximity to the sampling point. -10-
11 Case 1:10-cv WDQ Document 14-1 Filed 03/29/10 Page 11 of 11 E. Plaintiff Assateague Coastkeeper Must Be Dismissed Pursuant to Rule 17(b(3 Because It Has No Legal Existence And Thus Lacks Capacity To Sue. As is set forth in more detail the Perdue Memorandum, Plaintiff Assateague Coastkeeper has no legal existence and this lack the capacity to sue. The Court should therefore dismiss this Plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b(3. V. CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, the Complaint should be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, Dated: March 29, 2010 /s/ George F. Ritchie, Bar No Gordon, Feinblatt, Rothman, Hoffberger & Hollander, LLC The Garrett Building 233 East Redwood Street Baltimore, Maryland ( FAX: 410/ /s/ Hugh Cropper, IV, Bar No Cowdrey Thompson 9923 Stephen Decatur Highway, D-2 Post Office Box 535 Ocean City, Maryland FAX: 410/ Attorneys for Defendant Hudson Farm -11-
Case 1:10-cv WMN Document 28 Filed 08/04/10 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:10-cv-00487-WMN Document 28 Filed 08/04/10 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE, INC. v. Plaintiff, ALAN AND KRISTIN HUDSON FARM, et
Case 1:10-cv WMN Document 234 Filed 04/05/13 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 1:10-cv-00487-WMN Document 234 Filed 04/05/13 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE, INC., vs. Plaintiff, ALAN AND KRISTIN HUDSON FARM,
Case 1:10-cv WMN Document 205 Filed 11/21/12 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 1:10-cv-00487-WMN Document 205 Filed 11/21/12 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE, INC., vs. Plaintiff, ALAN AND KRISTIN HUDSON FARM,
Case 1:12-cv ABJ Document 14 Filed 06/19/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:12-cv-01369-ABJ Document 14 Filed 06/19/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DELONTE EMILIANO TRAZELL Plaintiff, vs. ROBERT G. WILMERS, et al. Defendants.
Case 1:10-cv WMN Document 51 Filed 04/04/11 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 1:10-cv-00487-WMN Document 51 Filed 04/04/11 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE, INC. v. Plaintiff, ALAN AND KRISTIN HUDSON FARM, et
6:13-cv MGL Date Filed 02/21/14 Entry Number 32 Page 1 of 10
6:13-cv-00257-MGL Date Filed 02/21/14 Entry Number 32 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Gregory Somers, ) Case No. 6:13-cv-00257-MGL-JDA
Case 2:18-cv KJD-CWH Document 7 Filed 12/26/18 Page 1 of 7
Case :-cv-0-kjd-cwh Document Filed // Page of 0 MICHAEL R. BROOKS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 HUNTER S. DAVIDSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 KOLESAR & LEATHAM 00 South Rampart Boulevard, Suite 00 Las Vegas, Nevada
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ADVANCED PHYSICIANS S.C., VS. Plaintiff, CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-2355-G
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Yeti Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC Doc. 32 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION YETI COOLERS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. 1:16-CV-264-RP RTIC COOLERS, LLC, RTIC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. Richmond Division. v. ) Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-799 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Harmon v. CB Squared Services Incorporated Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division OLLIE LEON HARMON III, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-799
Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 9 Filed: 04/11/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:218
Case: 1:13-cv-01569 Document #: 9 Filed: 04/11/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:218 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PAUL DUFFY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Case 1:17-cv-01097-LCB-JLW Document 27 Filed 08/13/18 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA APPALACHIAN VOICES, NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE
Case 2:09-cv GCS-MKM Document 24 Filed 12/22/2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:09-cv-11239-GCS-MKM Document 24 Filed 12/22/2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BRIAN MCLEAN and GAIL CLIFFORD, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No.
Case 4:15-cv ALM-CAN Document 13 Filed 09/17/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 58 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Case 4:15-cv-00571-ALM-CAN Document 13 Filed 09/17/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 58 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION PRUVIT VENTURES, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. AXCESS GLOBAL
Case 5:16-cv AB-DTB Document 43 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:192 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 5:16-cv-00339-AB-DTB Document 43 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:192 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JS-6 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No.: ED CV 16-00339-AB (DTBx)
Case 3:11-cv DPJ -FKB Document 26 Filed 01/05/12 Page 1 of 10
Case 3:11-cv-00332-DPJ -FKB Document 26 Filed 01/05/12 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI JACKSON DIVISION AUGUSTUS P. SORIANO PLAINTIFF V. CIVIL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION. v. Case No: 2:16-cv-833-FtM-99CM OPINION AND ORDER
Smith v. One 2016 55' Prestige Yacht et al Doc. 22 CHERYL SMITH, d/b/a Reliable Marine Salvage & Towing, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION v. Case
Case 3:13-cv DRH-SCW Document 13 Filed 04/11/13 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #311
Case 3:13-cv-00207-DRH-SCW Document 13 Filed 04/11/13 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #311 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PRENDA LAW, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 13-cv-00207
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PATROSKI v. RIDGE et al Doc. 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SUSAN PATROSKI, Plaintiff, 2: 11-cv-1065 v. PRESSLEY RIDGE, PRESSLEY RIDGE FOUNDATION, and B.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:
Morlock, LLC v. The Bank of New York Mellon Doc. 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION MORLOCK, L.L.C., a Texas Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff,
Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 21 Filed: 03/27/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:84
Case: 1:16-cv-04522 Document #: 21 Filed: 03/27/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:84 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LISA SKINNER, Plaintiff, v. Case No.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
1 1 1 PATRICIA BUTLER and WESLEY BUTLER, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiffs, HARVEST MANAGEMENT SUB, LLC d/b/a HOLIDAY RETIREMENT, Defendant. I. INTRODUCTION
HOUSTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. TITLEWORKS OF SOUTHWE...
Page 1 of 6 HOUSTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. TITLEWORKS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., MIKHAIL TRAKHTENBERG, and WESTCOR LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. Case No. 2:15-cv-219-FtM-29DNF.
Case 3:10-cv KRG Document 28 Filed 03/25/11 Page 1 of 10
Case 3:10-cv-00013-KRG Document 28 Filed 03/25/11 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DARRELL DUFOUR & Civil Action No.3: 10-cv-00013 KATHY DUFOUR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Morales v. United States of America Doc. 10 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : NICHOLAS MORALES, JR., : : Plaintiff, : v. : Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-2578-BRM-LGH
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION LEXINGTON LUMINANCE LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civ. Action No. 3:18-CV-01074-K SERVICE LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES, INC.
Case 8:14-cv VMC-TBM Document 32 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 146 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:14-cv-01617-VMC-TBM Document 32 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 146 SOBEK THERAPEUTICS, LLC, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:14-cv-1617-T-33TBM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:12-CV REDRIDGE FINANCE GROUP, LLC
Leed HR, LLC v. Redridge Finance Group, LLC Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:12-CV-00797 LEED HR, LLC PLAINTIFF v. REDRIDGE FINANCE GROUP,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-cv-446-MOC-DSC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-cv-446-MOC-DSC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
Case 1:12-cv JCC-TRJ Document 27 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 19 PageID# 168
Case 1:12-cv-00396-JCC-TRJ Document 27 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 19 PageID# 168 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division CYBERLOCK CONSULTING, INC., )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. Alexandria Division ) ) This matter is before the Court on Defendant Catalin
Case 1:12-cv-00158-JCC-TCB Document 34 Filed 05/23/12 Page 1 of 16 PageID# 160 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division PRECISION FRANCHISING, LLC, )
Case 2:11-cv JES-CM Document 196 Filed 08/18/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 3358
Case 2:11-cv-00459-JES-CM Document 196 Filed 08/18/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 3358 STACEY SUE BERLINGER, as Beneficiaries to the Rosa B. Schweiker Trust and all of its related trusts aka Stacey Berlinger O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 8:12-cv-00215-FMO-RNB Document 202 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:7198 Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Vanessa Figueroa None None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Case 1:13-cv RHB Doc #14 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#88
Case 1:13-cv-01235-RHB Doc #14 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#88 TIFFANY STRAND, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, CORINTHIAN COLLEGES,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION DORIS LOTT, Plaintiff, v. No. 15-00439-CV-W-DW LVNV FUNDING LLC, et al., Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is Defendants
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. HTC Corporation et al Doc. 83 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC, Plaintiff, v. HTC CORPORATION and HTC
Case 1:09-cv NMG Document 29 Filed 12/01/2009 Page 1 of 12. United States District Court District of Massachusetts MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Case 1:09-cv-10555-NMG Document 29 Filed 12/01/2009 Page 1 of 12 STEPHANIE CATANZARO, Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANS UNION, LLC and VERIZON NEW ENGLAND, INC. Defendants. GORTON,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s).
Western National Insurance Group v. Hanlon et al Doc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * 0 WESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP, v. CARRIE M. HANLON, ESQ., et al., Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s).
Case 1:14-cv WYD-MEH Document 26 Filed 07/17/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:14-cv-00262-WYD-MEH Document 26 Filed 07/17/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6 Civil Action No. 14 cv 00262-WYD-MEH MALIBU MEDIA, L.L.C., v. Plaintiff, RICHARD SADOWSKI, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES
Case 3:10-cv MLC -DEA Document 10 Filed 06/24/10 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 112
Case 310-cv-00494-MLC -DEA Document 10 Filed 06/24/10 Page 1 of 8 PageID 112 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ROBERT JOHNSON, et al., CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-494 (MLC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Shockley v. Stericycle, Inc. Doc. 39 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION CHRISTOPHER SHOCKLEY, v. Plaintiff, STERICYCLE, INC.; ROBERT RIZZO; VICKI KRATOHWIL; and
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 6:10-cv-00414-GAP-DAB Document 102 Filed 01/23/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID 726 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. and NURDEEN MUSTAFA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
-VPC Crow v. Home Loan Center, Inc. dba LendingTree Loans et al Doc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 0 HEATHER L. CROW, Plaintiff, v. HOME LOAN CENTER, INC.; et al., Defendants. * * * :-cv-0-lrh-vpc
Case 3:11-cv BEN-MDD Document 29-1 Filed 03/05/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-ben-mdd Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 John Karl Buche (SBN ) BUCHE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Prospect, Suite 0 La Jolla, California 0 () - () -0 Fax jbuche@buchelaw.com Attorneys for Moving Defendant
Case 1:16-cv KLM Document 26 Filed 07/05/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO ORDER
Case 1:16-cv-02000-KLM Document 26 Filed 07/05/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 18 Civil Action No. 16-cv-02000-KLM GARY THUROW, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case: 1:12)cv)0000-)S/L1 Doc. 5: 64 Filed: 08=17=12 1 of 7 5: -10
Case: 1:12cv0000-S/L1 Doc. 5: 64 Filed: 08=17=12 Pa@e: 1 of 7 Pa@eBD 5: -10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION BRYAN PENNINGTON, on behalf of himself and all
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:13-CV-678-MOC-DSC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:13-CV-678-MOC-DSC LEE S. JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) J.P. MORGAN CHASE NATIONAL
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MIKE K. STRONG, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA vs. Plaintiff, HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.; CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., US Bank Trust N.A. as Trustee of LSF9 Master Participation
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : ORDER
Case 117-cv-05214-RWS Document 24 Filed 09/26/18 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION VASHAUN JONES, Plaintiff, v. PIEDMONT PLUS FEDERAL
Case 3:18-cv GAG Document 33 Filed 10/17/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO OPINION AND ORDER
Case :-cv-0-gag Document Filed // Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO NORTON LILLY INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. PUERTO RICO PORTS AUTHORITY, Defendant. CASE
Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 58 Filed: 01/16/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:387
Case: 1:11-cv-07686 Document #: 58 Filed: 01/16/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:387 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION RAY PADILLA, on behalf of himself and all others
Case: 3:14-cv DAK Doc #: 27 Filed: 01/27/15 1 of 17. PageID #: 987
Case: 3:14-cv-01699-DAK Doc #: 27 Filed: 01/27/15 1 of 17. PageID #: 987 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION LARRY ASKINS, et al., -vs- OHIO DEPARTMENT
-BGC Channel Bio, LLC et al v. Illinois Family Farms et al Doc. 18
-BGC Channel Bio, LLC et al v. Illinois Family Farms et al Doc. 18 E-FILED Wednesday, 15 December, 2010 09:28:42 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : : ORDER
Case 213-cv-00155-RWS Document 9 Filed 02/27/14 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION OVIDIU CONSTANTIN, v. Plaintiff, WELLS FARGO BANK,
Case: 1:15-cv PAG Doc #: 28 Filed: 08/28/15 1 of 6. PageID #: 140 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 1:15-cv-00388-PAG Doc #: 28 Filed: 08/28/15 1 of 6. PageID #: 140 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Tracy Scaife, CASE NO. 1:15 CV 388 Plaintiff, JUDGE PATRICIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. v. : Civil Action No. DKC MEMORANDUM OPINION
Diaz et al v. Corporate Cleaning Solutions, LLC et al Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ANAHI M. DIAZ, et al. : : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 15-2203 : CORPORATE CLEANING
3:14-cv MGL Date Filed 10/23/14 Entry Number 24 Page 1 of 5
3:14-cv-01982-MGL Date Filed 10/23/14 Entry Number 24 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Melinda K. Lindler, Plaintiff, vs. Civil Action
Case 0:17-cv WPD Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/11/2017 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:17-cv-61266-WPD Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/11/2017 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA SILVIA LEONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. Plaintiff, OPINION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY JOEVANNIE SOLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No: 18-10255 (SDW) (SCM) v. Plaintiff,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION. ) No. 2:10-cv JPM-dkv
West et al v. Americare Long Term Specialty Hospital, LLC Doc. 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION LINDA WEST and VICKI WATSON as ) surviving natural
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY AMY VIGGIANO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED Civ. Action No. 17-0243-BRM-TJB Plaintiff, v. OPINION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Case :-cv-00-lrs Document Filed /0/ 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ERNESTO MANJARES, ) )) ) Plaintiff, ) No. CV--0-LRS ) vs. ) ORDER GRANTING ) MOTION TO DISMISS, ) WITH
Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 38 Filed: 01/13/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:167 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case: 1:10-cv-04723 Document #: 38 Filed: 01/13/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:167 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS FRANCIS J. SAVARIRAYAN, M.D., Plaintiff, Case No. 1:10-CV-04723
Case 8:17-cv VMC-AAS Document 50 Filed 07/13/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID 192 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:17-cv-00787-VMC-AAS Document 50 Filed 07/13/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID 192 SUZANNE RIHA ex rel. I.C., Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION v. Case No. 8:17-cv-787-T-33AAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Felty, Jr. v. Driver Solutions, LLC et al Doc. 73 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION GEORGE FELTY, JR., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) 13 C 2818 ) DRIVER SOLUTIONS,
Case 3:10-cv L Document 22 Filed 08/19/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID 101 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:10-cv-00546-L Document 22 Filed 08/19/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID 101 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MICHAEL RIDDLE, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0546-L
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Ballas et al v. Chickashaw Nation Industries Inc et al Doc. 46 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA TOM G. BALLAS and ) RON C. PERKINS, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case
Case 1:13-cv SOM-KSC Document 79 Filed 10/23/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 637 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
Case 1:13-cv-00645-SOM-KSC Document 79 Filed 10/23/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 637 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII MAURICE HOWARD, vs. Plaintiff, THE HERTZ CORPORATION, et
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION. CASE NO. 3:07cv528-RS-MD ORDER
Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION 316, INC., Plaintiff, vs. CASE NO. 3:07cv528-RS-MD MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. / ORDER Before
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:09-cv-07710-PA-FFM Document 18 Filed 02/08/10 Page 1 of 5 Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Paul Songco Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No. Attorneys
Case 2:11-cv DDP-MRW Document 23 Filed 02/19/13 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:110 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-ddp-mrw Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #:0 O NO JS- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 JULIE ZEMAN, on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, USC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case 4:12-cv-01585 Document 26 Filed in TXSD on 11/30/12 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION MORLOCK, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO.
Case 1:11-cv JEC Document 10 Filed 03/14/12 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:11-cv-01167-JEC Document 10 Filed 03/14/12 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION PATRICIA WALKER, Individually and in her Capacity
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. Plaintiff, Civil Action No (JBS-JS)
JONES v. OWENS et al Doc. 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DAVID T. JONES, HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 17-2634 (JBS-JS) DAVID S. OWENS;
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA - Alexandria Division -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA - Alexandria Division - IN RE: BLACKWATER ALIEN TORT CLAIMS ACT LITIGATION Case No. 1:09-cv-615 Case No. 1:09-cv-616 Case No. 1:09-cv-617
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM & ORDER. April 25, 2017
Case 1:16-cv-02529-JEJ Document 14 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JAMES R. WILLIAMS, : 1:16-cv-02529-JEJ : Plaintiff, : : Hon. John
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-nc Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 0 JERRY JOHNSON, et al., v. Plaintiffs, FUJITSU TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. -cv-0 NC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : : ORDER
Case 112-cv-00228-RWS Document 5 Filed 03/21/13 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION JOSEPH MENYAH, v. Plaintiff, BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING,
Zervos v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Dist. Court, D. Maryland In Re: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10)
Zervos v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Dist. Court, D. Maryland 2012 MEMORANDUM JAMES K. BREDAR, District Judge. CHRISTINE ZERVOS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant. Civil No. 1:11-cv-03757-JKB.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Case No. 12-cv HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ELCOMETER, INC., Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 12-cv-14628 HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN TQC-USA, INC., et al., Defendants. / ORDER DENYING
-CCC GLUSHAKOW, M.D. v. BOYARSKY et al Doc. 23. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of New Jersey LETTER OPINION
-CCC GLUSHAKOW, M.D. v. BOYARSKY et al Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of New Jersey CHAM BERS OF JOSE L. LINARES JUDGE M ARTIN LUTHER KING JR. FEDERAL BUILDING & U.S. COURTHOUSE 50 W ALNUT
Case 2:15-cv CDJ Document 31 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:15-cv-00773-CDJ Document 31 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOHN D. ORANGE, on behalf of himself : and all others similarly
Case 1:10-cv WMN Document 223 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 31 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 1:10-cv-00487-WMN Document 223 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 31 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE, INC. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. WMN-10-487 v. ALAN
Case: 1:14-cv SJD Doc #: 21 Filed: 05/20/15 Page: 1 of 11 PAGEID #: 287
Case 114-cv-00698-SJD Doc # 21 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 11 PAGEID # 287 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Matthew Sahm, Plaintiff, v. Miami University,
Case 1:17-cv DPG Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2018 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:17-cv-20713-DPG Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2018 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 17-cv-20713-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES RICHARD KURZBAN, v. Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condominium Assn., Inc. Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION AJIT BHOGAITA, Plaintiff, -vs- Case No. 6:11-cv-1637-Orl-31DAB ALTAMONTE
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0701n.06. Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0701n.06 Case No. 14-6269 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT RON NOLLNER and BEVERLY NOLLNER, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, SOUTHERN
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 3:17-cv-01757-KM Document 10 Filed 11/30/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MARTIN FOSS and SUSAN FOSS, : No. 3:17cv1757 Plaintiffs : : (Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION. Plaintiff, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION
Cummings v. Moore et al Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION BERTHA L. CUMMINGS, Plaintiff, v. Action No. 3:08 CV 579 EDDIE N. MOORE, JR., JANET DUGGER, RANDY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. Plaintiffs, September 18, 2017
JERSEY STRONG PEDIATRICS, LLC v. WANAQUE CONVALESCENT CENTER et al Doc. 29 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
Clemons v. Google, Inc. Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION RICHARD CLEMONS, v. GOOGLE INC., Plaintiff, Defendant. Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-00963-AJT-TCB
BELL ATLANTIC V. TWOMBLY: THE DAWN OF A NEW PLEADING STANDARD? Antoinette N. Morgan* Brian K. Telfair
BELL ATLANTIC V. TWOMBLY: THE DAWN OF A NEW PLEADING STANDARD? Antoinette N. Morgan* Brian K. Telfair The United States Supreme Court's decision in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly 1 may very well mark the end
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA SHELL GULF OF MEXICO, INC., and SHELL OFFSHORE, INC., vs. Plaintiffs, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, INC., et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-0096-RRB
Case 4:12-cv MWB-TMB Document 32 Filed 11/15/12 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 412-cv-00919-MWB-TMB Document 32 Filed 11/15/12 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LINDA M. HAGERMAN, and CIVIL ACTION NO. 4CV-12-0919 HOWARD
UNITED 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
: : Defendants. : Plaintiff Palmer/Kane LLC ( Palmer Kane ) brings this action alleging
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------x PALMER KANE LLC, Plaintiff, against SCHOLASTIC CORPORATION, SCHOLASTIC, INC., AND CORBIS CORPORATION,
Case 3:16-cv RRE-ARS Document 46 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Case 3:16-cv-00144-RRE-ARS Document 46 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 10 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA vs. Plaintiff, Intercept Corporation,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 1:09-cv-07704 Document #: 46 Filed: 03/12/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:293 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATE OF AMERICA, ex rel.
Case 3:16-cv BRM-DEA Document 36 Filed 04/26/17 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 519 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 3:16-cv-04064-BRM-DEA Document 36 Filed 04/26/17 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 519 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : DANIEL ZEMEL, on behalf of himself, and
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No. 8:13-cv-2428-T-33TBM ORDER
!aaassseee 888:::111333- - -cccvvv- - -000222444222888- - -VVVMMM!- - -TTTBBBMMM DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt 555111 FFFiiillleeeddd 000222///111888///111444 PPPaaagggeee 111 ooofff 888 PPPaaagggeeeIIIDDD