Case 3:11-cv PGS-DEA Document 203 Filed 01/18/13 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 5518 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Case 3:11-cv PGS-DEA Document 203 Filed 01/18/13 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 5518 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY"

Transcription

1 Case 3:11-cv PGS-DEA Document 203 Filed 01/18/13 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 5518 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : PPL ENERGY PLUS, LLC, et al. : : Civil Action No PGS-DEA : Plaintiffs, : : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER v. : : SOLOMON, et al. : : Defendants. : This matter comes before the Court in connection with Plaintiffs Subpoena served on non-party PJM Interconnection, LLC ( PJM ) on October 26, Non-party intervenors Hess Newark, LLC ( Hess ) [dkt. no. 168], Gemma Power Systems, LLC ( Gemma ) [dkt. no. 172], and Marketing Analytics, LLC ( Marketing Analytics ) [dkt. no. 176] (collectively, Intervenors ) each filed motions to quash the Subpoena. 1 The Court has carefully considered the submissions of Parties and Intervenors pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 78 and, for the reasons set forth below, Intervenors Motions are GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. I. INTRODUCTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY The central issue in this case is whether the New Jersey Long-Term Capacity Agreement Pilot Program Act (P.L. 2011, c.9, approved Jan. 28, 2011, codified at N.J.S.A. 48:3-51,48: ) ( LCAPP Act ) is preempted by the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. On September 28, 2012, U.S. District Judge Peter G. Sheridan issued 1 Non-parties NRG Engery, Inc. ( NRG ) and New Jersey Power Development LLC ( NJPD ) joined the objections to the PJM subpoena by letter dated November 30, See dkt. no. 171.

2 Case 3:11-cv PGS-DEA Document 203 Filed 01/18/13 Page 2 of 12 PageID: 5519 an Opinion denying the Parties cross-motions for summary judgment. See dkt. no The trial of this matter is set for March 26, The instant dispute relates to Plaintiffs Subpoena to PJM. The Subpoena seeks five categories of information and documents concerning the wholesale electricity markets operated by PJM. 3 In accordance with its contractual obligations, PJM notified its market participants (the 2 The facts of this case are well known to the Parties and Intervenors. They have also been set forth in detail by Judge Sheridan in his recent summary judgment Opinion. See dkt. no As a result, the following discussion focuses only on the facts relevant to the instant dispute. 3 Specifically, the Subpoena seeks the following categories of documents and information: 1) All confidential documents and data sent to the New Jersey BPU in response to the request for confidential information from Mr. Kenneth Sheehan of the NJ BPU, which request PJM identified in an to members from Dave Anders dated June 27, ) All non-confidential documents and data sent to the NJ BPU concerning the LCAPP or the PJM Base Residual Auction. 3) To the extent not produced in response to item 1: (a) For each generation resource that offered into the 2012 Base Residual Auction, the offered and cleared megawatt quantities and associated prices. Such data should include supplier, and generation type... (b) For all generation capacity resources included in the response to (a), indicate the fuel source and specific type of unit... and the station/unit name and its geographic location; and the eford. (c) For generators that filed MOPR exceptions, please provide the offer price ultimately authorized for bids into the Base Residual Auction. 4) Documents and data concerning the MOPR exception submissions of Hess, NJPD, and CPV, including all information analyzing, supporting, or undermining those submissions and any revisions or modifications to those submissions. 5) Documents and data created after June 1, 2010 concerning the adequacy of the supply of generation for New Jersey or concerning the need (or lack of need) for additional generation for New Jersey. 2

3 Case 3:11-cv PGS-DEA Document 203 Filed 01/18/13 Page 3 of 12 PageID: 5520 Participants ) that compliance with the Subpoena would potentially disclose their confidential information. On November 27, 2012, the Court conducted a preliminary hearing to address the Amended Confidentiality Order requested by PJM and the Participants and Intervenors objections to PJM s compliance with the Subpoena. As a result of the preliminary hearing, and with the consent of all Parties, the Court granted the Intervenors leave to intervene for the limited purpose of addressing the Subpoena issues, provided they do so by November 30, Subsequently, participants Hess and Gemma, and the Independent Market Monitor, Marketing Analytics, intervened and filed respective motions to quash the Subpoena. A. PJM & Capacity Auctions PJM is an independent market administrator that operates pursuant to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC ) regulations and has an interest in ensuring the proper operation of the energy markets that it administers. PJM serves several critical functions with respect to the energy infrastructure in its region, which is comprised of all or part of thirteen states, including New Jersey and the District of Columbia. Most significant to the issue at hand, PJM operates a number of wholesale electricity markets, collectively known as the Reliability Pricing Model ( RPM ). The RPM is a series of capacity auctions for delivery of electricity in the future. Entities that generate electric power make bids that reflect the prices at which they will deliver power in the future, making commitments to produce electricity when it is needed to meet demand. PJM s wholesale electricity markets have numerous participants, including the Plaintiffs and several Intervenors. As Judge Sheridan explained, the bids are, in turn, evaluated by PJM and Marketing Analytics, the Independent Market Monitor, to ensure they are competitive. Sheridan Opinion at 3

4 Case 3:11-cv PGS-DEA Document 203 Filed 01/18/13 Page 4 of 12 PageID: Ultimately, the price of capacity is set by the intersection of supply and demand and is referred to as the clearing price. Id. The clearing price is established by PJM and is called the MOPR (minimum offer price rule) screen. Id. Any generator that bids at or below the clearing price clears the auction, while any generator that bids above the auction fails to clear the auction. Id. B. Intervenors 1. Marketing Analytics Marketing Analytics also exists pursuant to FERC guidelines, but is an entity separate and apart from PJM. Marketing Analytics is the Independent Market Monitor charged with objectively monitoring the conduct of PJM and the Participants for compliance with the market rules and anticompetitive behavior. Marketing Analytics also reports on the performance of the markets and recommends market design improvements. Specifically, Marketing Analytics utilizes its special expertise in applied economics and the electricity industry to evaluate the levels of offers to determine whether they are competitive or whether they represent a potential exercise of market power. 2. Market Participants Hess was created by Newark Energy Holdings, LLC ( NEH ) for the purpose of obtaining and holding Standard Offer Capacity Agreements ( SOCAs ) 4 for an energy project in Newark, New Jersey. NEH is a joint venture of Hess and others formed for the purpose of obtaining approvals related to the construction of a gas-fired power plant owned by Hess in Newark. Gemma is a builder of power generation facilities for utilities, municipalities and independent power producers. As part of a proposal to join the Hess project in Newark, Gemma 4 See Sheridan Opinion at 7-9 (detailing how SOCAs function under the LCAPP Act). 4

5 Case 3:11-cv PGS-DEA Document 203 Filed 01/18/13 Page 5 of 12 PageID: 5522 submitted two bids to Hess. Gemma believes their bid information was among documents either selected or required to be submitted by Hess to Marketing Analytics in order to substantiate Hess bid as part of PJM s May, 2012 Base Residual Auction for capacity. II. ARGUMENT Intervenors now seek to quash Plaintiffs Request nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the extent the requested documents contain generator-specific information submitted to PJM as part of the MOPR exception process or otherwise disclose the offer floors of generators. At the macro level, Marketing Analytics seeks to limit disclosure of the information sought in order to protect the integrity of the energy markets themselves. Plaintiffs Request no. 5 does not appear to be in dispute and therefore need not be addressed. Plaintiffs, in contrast, claim they should be permitted to conduct their own independent analysis of the generator-specific data in order to determine whether the bids submitted to PJM were actually economical. Plaintiffs claim this will allow them to test the factual basis of the Participants MOPR exception materials and further understand how the markets develop their prices. III. DISCUSSION A. Legal Standard FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(3)(A) sets forth the circumstances under which the Court must quash a subpoena. In relevant part, it provides: (c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena. (3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. (A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena that: (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires excessive travel by a non-party; 5

6 Case 3:11-cv PGS-DEA Document 203 Filed 01/18/13 Page 6 of 12 PageID: 5523 (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden. An undue burden exists when the subpoena is unreasonable or oppressive. In re Lazaridis, 2011 WL , at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 1, 2011) (Schmulovich v Rt. 9 LLC, 2007 WL , at *4 (D.N.J. Aug. 15, 2007)). In evaluating whether a subpoena is unreasonable or oppressive, the district court must balance the relevance of the discovery sought, the requesting party's needs, and the potential hardship to the party subject to the subpoena. Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co., Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., Inc., 2011 WL , at *3 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 25, 2011); see also Schmulovich, 2007 WL , at *4 (D.N.J. Aug. 15, 2007); In re Auto. Refinishing Paint, 229 F.R.D. 482, 495 (E.D. Pa. 2005). The party seeking to quash the subpoena bears the burden of demonstrating that the requirements of [FED. R. CIV. P. 45] are satisfied. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-15, 2012 WL , at *5 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 30, 2012) (citing City of St. Petersburg v. Total Containment, Inc., 2008 WL , at *2 (E.D. Pa. May 5, 2008)). This has been described as a heavy burden. Id. (citing Dexter v. Cosan Chem. Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22134, at *7-8 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2000)). B. Relevance & Plaintiffs Needs Intervenors primary argument is that the Subpoena seeks confidential and proprietary information that exceeds the boundaries of relevant discovery. For the reasons discussed below, the Court agrees. A Rule 45 subpoena served in conjunction with discovery must fall within the scope of proper discovery under FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Schmulovich, 2007 WL , at *2 (citing Transcor, Inc. v. Furney Charters, Inc., 212 F.R.D. 588, 591 (D. Kan. 2003)). If a subpoena falls 6

7 Case 3:11-cv PGS-DEA Document 203 Filed 01/18/13 Page 7 of 12 PageID: 5524 outside the scope of permissible discovery, the Court has authority to quash or modify it upon timely motion by the party served. Id. Of course, the scope of discovery in federal litigation is broad. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense, and information sought by the parties need not be admissible at trial if it is reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). While undoubtedly broad, the scope of discovery, however, is not boundless. Unicasa Mktg. Group, LLC v. Spinelli, 2007 WL , at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 15, 2007). In order to determine the relevancy of Plaintiffs requests, it is necessary to construe the elements of their preemption claims and the legal framework which supports them. Congressional intent is the ultimate touchstone in any preemption analysis. Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U.S. 497, 504 (1978). Thus, Congress may explicitly pre-empt state law, see e.g., Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, (1983), or it may implicitly indicate an intent to occupy a given field to the exclusion of state law. Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293, 300 (1988). Such an implicit purpose may be inferred where the pervasiveness of the federal regulation precludes supplementation by the States, where the federal interest in the field is sufficiently dominant, or where the object sought to be obtained by the federal law and the character of obligations imposed by it reveal the same purpose. Id. (citation omitted). Finally, state law is pre-empted when it actually conflicts with federal law or stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Id. (citations omitted). Here, the LCAPP Act is alleged to be in conflict with the purpose of the Federal energy guidelines as applied to PJM s capacity auction. As Judge Sheridan framed the issue, the question is whether the LCAPP Act, which allows the SOCA generators [such as Hess] to bid 7

8 Case 3:11-cv PGS-DEA Document 203 Filed 01/18/13 Page 8 of 12 PageID: 5525 below cost due to SOCA reimbursement, artificially lowers auction prices, defeating federal competitiveness concerns. Sheridan Opinion at 11. Said differently, Plaintiffs believe market prices may have been different in the absence of the LCAPP Act. Such an effect would therefore be contrary to FERC s decision to allow wholesale capacity prices to be set by organic market forces. In order to prove their claims, Plaintiffs argue they are entitled to discover how the MOPR process actually works, a point identified in Judge Sheridan s summary judgment Opinion. (Plaintiffs argument directly implicates Request nos. 1, 3, and 4 and, to a lesser extent, Request no. 2.) However, there is an important distinction between understanding how the MOPR process interacts with the LCAPP Act and whether a given unit-specific application of the process yielded competitive results. While the former would be relevant to preemption, the latter would not at least not in the manner proposed by Plaintiffs. 5 With this in mind, the Court does not believe Plaintiffs should be permitted to obtain other Participants confidential and proprietary information in order to conduct their own unit-specific MOPR analysis. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, the Court will quash Requests nos. 1, 3, and 4. Request no. 2 will be quashed to the extent it seeks generator-specific information submitted to PJM as part of the MOPR exception process or other disclosure of the offer floors of generators. As a threshold matter, whether the LCAPP Act is preempted by federal regulations is largely a question of law. The Supreme Court has made this clear. See Matter of Reading Co., 115 F.3d 1111, 1117 (3d Cir. 1997) (citing California Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272, 280 (1987)) ( As the Supreme Court has explained, in preemption analysis our 5 How MOPR works and protects the FERC jurisdictional capacity market would be relevant. Even Hess has conceded this point. Hess Reply, dkt. no. 189, at 16. However, the Court is not persuaded that a unit-specific application of the MOPR process would move this analysis forward. 8

9 Case 3:11-cv PGS-DEA Document 203 Filed 01/18/13 Page 9 of 12 PageID: 5526 sole task is to ascertain the intent of Congress. ). As a result, it is difficult to see how an independent evaluation of the MOPR submissions would tend to show how the LCAPP Act functions as an obstacle to implementation of the federal policy; or how it would inform a preemption analysis which, necessarily, must be rooted in Congressional intent. Still, Plaintiffs argument fails for additional reasons. First, application of the May, 2012 MOPR is moot. This is because the May, 2012 MOPR process has been supplanted by the Revised MOPR, effective December 17, An additional revised MOPR is proposed to be effective February 5, Therefore, any ex-post review, regardless of its findings, would not be relevant to a preemption claim based on the MOPR rules and procedures as currently constructed. Instead, it would seem Plaintiffs analysis would be more appropriately focused toward the interaction of the LCAPP Act with the revised MOPR and proposed revised MOPR. Further, Plaintiffs argument is not reconcilable with the statements of PJM, the Market Monitor and FERC. Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to see for themselves how incentives, as influenced by the LCAPP Act, interacted with the MOPR in practice. Pl. s Br., dkt. no. 184, at 7. However, as the Market Monitor points out, the purpose of the MOPR is to calculate an offer that excludes consideration of subsidies such as SOCAs afforded under the LCAPP Act. Marketing Analytics Br., dkt. no. 177, at 3. Indeed, FERC issued an order indicating as much. In FERC s April 12, 2011 order, FERC directed PJM to revise its MOPR standards so that a sell offer would be permissible when such offer is consistent with the competitive, cost-based, fixed, nominal levelized, net cost of new entry were the resources to rely solely on revenues from PJM administered markets. Pjm Interconnection, L.L.C. Pjm Power Providers Group, 135 FERC at 122 (Apr. 12, 2011) (emphasis added), aff d on reh g, 137 FERC 61,145 at 244 9

10 Case 3:11-cv PGS-DEA Document 203 Filed 01/18/13 Page 10 of 12 PageID: 5527 (Nov. 17, 2011) (affirming portion of Apr. 12, 2011 Order regarding MOPR standard). PJM and the Market Monitor have likewise maintained that their reviews did not consider SOCAs in any MOPR exception evaluations. Plaintiffs position in light of these facts is not persuasive. Still, even if Plaintiffs theory rests on the bids being actually economical, this Court is not an appropriate forum to discover such information. As Hess points out, any finding with respect to the specific application of the MOPR to a specific new entrant can lead to only one of two conclusions PJM did not apply the MOPR correctly or the MOPR does not do as FERC directed. Hess Reply at 8. However, it is not Plaintiffs role to determine whether the Hess and CPV projects were economical or whether their offer floors did or did not reflect the competitive cost of new entry. That is the purpose of PJM and the Market Monitor. To this end, both PJM and the Market Monitor, in allowing the bids to clear the auction, concluded they were, in fact, economical. Only FERC, moreover, has jurisdiction to consider any disputes over whether PJM and the Market Monitor followed the FERC-approved rate. 16 U.S.C. 824e. As discussed above, FERC has already issued a series of orders construing the LCAPP Act and the MOPR process. Likewise, any objections to FERC s findings must be taken up directly with the U.S. Court of Appeals. 16 U.S.C. 825l(b). Here, a number of the FERC decisions have been appealed to the Third Circuit. See, e.g., NJ Board of Public Utilities, et al v. FERC, Case Nos , et al. (3d. Cir. 2011). Therefore, allowing Plaintiffs to perform such an analysis would impermissibly infringe upon the authority of PJM, the Market Monitor, FERC and the Court of Appeals. Notwithstanding the above, Plaintiffs needs will not go unmet. PJM must still comply with the non-confidential portions of the Subpoena, Requests nos. 2 (as is outlined in the Order below) and 5. In addition, as of the date of this Opinion, CPV has subpoenaed PJM s Chief 10

11 Case 3:11-cv PGS-DEA Document 203 Filed 01/18/13 Page 11 of 12 PageID: 5528 Economist, Paul Sotkiewicz. See CPV Letter, dkt. no Thus, Plaintiffs will have adequate information to demonstrate and understand how the LCAPP Act, and in particular the MOPR exception process, interacts with Federal energy regulations. C. Hardship The Court also believes compliance with the Subpoena would subject the Participants to substantial hardship. Here, the Subpoena would effectively require the Participants to disclose confidential and proprietary business information to their competitors. This fact alone presents significant hardships especially in light of the Participants non-party status in this action. Cf. Harris v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Operations, Inc., 2010 WL , at *5 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 10, 2010) ( [T]he proper balance between these non-party third persons' privacy interests and the discovery interests of Plaintiff is to assure that only those portions of [the discovery sought] that are clearly relevant to Plaintiff's claim be open to disclosure. ). However, as Marketing Analytics cautions, this case implicates more far-reaching concerns. Because structural market power is endemic to the organized wholesale electricity markets operated by PJM, the government relies on the PJM capacity auction to produce competitive results. In the words of Marketing Analytics, [i]f market sensitive information becomes available to competitors through a judicial process or other means, there is serious risk that market power and manipulation will taint pricing in PJM markets. Marketing Analytics Br. at 2. This is because the incentive to generate offers based on Participants own marginal costs is reduced or eliminated to the extent that a Participant knows the marginal costs of its competitors. 6 Plaintiffs have indicated that they may move to quash the Sotkiewicz Subpoena. This position is apparently tied to the Court s decision in the instant Motion and would be done to ensure consistent treatment of the two discovery requests. See Pl. s Letter, dkt. no Passing judgment on the propriety of such a motion would be premature. However, the Court nonetheless finds this position curious in light of Plaintiffs asserted concern for addressing the issues of fact identified by Judge Sheridan. 11

12 Case 3:11-cv PGS-DEA Document 203 Filed 01/18/13 Page 12 of 12 PageID: 5529 PJM echoed this concern. See PJM Objection, dkt. no , at 3. ( The disclosure of this data could undermine or impair the integrity of [the energy markets]. ). Thus, releasing this data could potentially result in millions of dollars of excessive market prices per year a cost which would harm consumers as much as generators. Marketing Analytics Br. at 2. That the Market Monitor, as a neutral and objective participant in this matter, sought leave to intervene speaks to the gravity of the potential hardships. Therefore, the Court concludes any potential benefit to Plaintiffs would be outweighed by the hardships to the Participants and the public. IV. CONCLUSION & ORDER The Court having considered the papers submitted and the arguments of counsel pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 78, and for the reasons set forth above; IT IS on this 18 h day of January, 2013, ORDERED that Intervenors Motions to Quash the Subpoena are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: 1. Intervenors Motion with respect to Request nos. 1, 3, and 4 of the Subpoena is GRANTED; and 2. Intervenors Motion with respect to Request no. 2 is GRANTED only to the extent the relevant documents contain generator-specific information submitted to PJM as part of the MOPR exception process or otherwise disclose the offer floors of generators; and it is further ORDERED that PJM shall otherwise comply with the Subpoena, including production of documents responsive to Request no. 5. s/ Douglas E. Arpert DOUGLAS E. ARPERT, U.S.M.J. 12

Case No , & (consolidated) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Case No , & (consolidated) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Case: 13-4330 Document: 003111516193 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/24/2014 Case No. 13-4330, 13-4394 & 13-4501 (consolidated) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC, et

More information

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Appeal: 13-2419 Doc: 44-1 Filed: 02/11/2014 Pg: 1 of 36 Nos. 13-2419, 13-2424 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DOUGLAS

More information

Case 2:16-cv ES-SCM Document 78 Filed 01/25/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 681 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 2:16-cv ES-SCM Document 78 Filed 01/25/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 681 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 216-cv-00753-ES-SCM Document 78 Filed 01/25/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID 681 Not for Publication UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY NORMAN WALSH, on behalf of himself and others similarly

More information

Case 3:14-cv AET-DEA Document 9 Filed 10/17/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 117 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 3:14-cv AET-DEA Document 9 Filed 10/17/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 117 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 314-cv-05655-AET-DEA Document 9 Filed 10/17/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID 117 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY In Re Application of OWL SHIPPING, LLC & ORIOLE Civil Action No. 14-5655 (AET)(DEA)

More information

2:14-cv RMG Date Filed 06/03/15 Entry Number 72 Page 1 of 9

2:14-cv RMG Date Filed 06/03/15 Entry Number 72 Page 1 of 9 2:14-cv-02567-RMG Date Filed 06/03/15 Entry Number 72 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION East Bridge Lofts Property Owners ) Civil Action

More information

JOSEPH L. FIORDALISO, ET AL., Petitioners,

JOSEPH L. FIORDALISO, ET AL., Petitioners, Su:~erne Court, U.$. No. 14-694 OFFiC~ OF -~ Hi:.. CLERK ~gn the Supreme Court of th~ Unitell State~ JOSEPH L. FIORDALISO, ET AL., Petitioners, V. PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Charlottesville Division

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Charlottesville Division IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Charlottesville Division 04/20/2018 ELIZABETH SINES et al., ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No. 3:17cv00072 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

More information

Federal-State Relations in Energy Law in the United States of America

Federal-State Relations in Energy Law in the United States of America Federal-State Relations in Energy Law in the United States of America NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California November 18, 2014 Frank R. Lindh

More information

Case 2:17-cv RSM Document 27 Filed 03/29/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I.

Case 2:17-cv RSM Document 27 Filed 03/29/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. Case :-cv-0-rsm Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 0 ROBERT SILCOX, v. Plaintiff, AN/PF ACQUISITIONS CORP., d/b/a AUTONATION FORD BELLEVUE, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 14-634, 14-694 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CPV POWER DEVELOPMENT, INC., EIF NEWARK, LLC, Petitioners, v. PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC, ET AL., Respondents. JOSEPH L. FIORDALISO, ET AL., Petitioners,

More information

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. ALLCO FINANCE LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant,

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. ALLCO FINANCE LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant, 15-20 To Be Argued By: ROBERT D. SNOOK Assistant Attorney General IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ALLCO FINANCE LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT J. KLEE, in his Official

More information

STATE DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS RESPONSES TO AMICUS BRIEF OF UNITED STATES AND FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

STATE DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS RESPONSES TO AMICUS BRIEF OF UNITED STATES AND FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Nos. 17-2433, 17-2445 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH CIRCUIT VILLAGE OF OLD MILL CREEK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ANTHONY STAR, in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois

More information

Case 3:06-cv FLW-JJH Document 31 Filed 03/04/2008 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 3:06-cv FLW-JJH Document 31 Filed 03/04/2008 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 3:06-cv-02304-FLW-JJH Document 31 Filed 03/04/2008 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY V. MANE FILS S.A., : Civil Action No. 06-2304 (FLW) : Plaintiff, : : v. : : M E

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION Case:-mc-00-RS Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION PERSONAL AUDIO LLC, Plaintiff, v. TOGI ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and others, Defendants.

More information

Case 3:12-cv L Document 201 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 4769

Case 3:12-cv L Document 201 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 4769 Case 3:12-cv-00853-L Document 201 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 4769 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MANUFACTURERS COLLECTION COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff,

More information

Case 6:09-cv GAP-TBS Document 149 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID 3714

Case 6:09-cv GAP-TBS Document 149 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID 3714 Case 6:09-cv-01002-GAP-TBS Document 149 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID 3714 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex. rel. and ELIN BAKLID-KUNZ,

More information

Case: 5:17-cv SL Doc #: 22 Filed: 12/01/17 1 of 9. PageID #: 1107 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case: 5:17-cv SL Doc #: 22 Filed: 12/01/17 1 of 9. PageID #: 1107 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Case: 5:17-cv-01695-SL Doc #: 22 Filed: 12/01/17 1 of 9. PageID #: 1107 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION BOUNTY MINERALS, LLC, CASE NO. 5:17cv1695 PLAINTIFF, JUDGE

More information

Case 1:11-mc MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2011 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:11-mc MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2011 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 1:11-mc-22432-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2011 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL SHREDDING OF WISCONSIN, INC., a Wisconsin corporation,

More information

Nos & W. KEVIN HUGHES, et al., v. TALEN ENERGY MARKETING, LLC (f/k/a PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC), et al., Respondents. CPV MARYLAND, LLC,

Nos & W. KEVIN HUGHES, et al., v. TALEN ENERGY MARKETING, LLC (f/k/a PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC), et al., Respondents. CPV MARYLAND, LLC, Nos. 14-614 & 14-623 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States W. KEVIN HUGHES, et al., Petitioners, v. TALEN ENERGY MARKETING, LLC (f/k/a PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC), et al., Respondents. CPV MARYLAND, LLC,

More information

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : COMMENTS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : COMMENTS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Calpine Corporation, Dynegy Inc., Eastern Generation, LLC, Homer City Generation, L.P., NRG Power Marketing LLC, GenOn Energy Management, LLC, Carroll County

More information

Case 1:13-cv LGS Document 20 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 8. : Plaintiffs, : : : Defendants. :

Case 1:13-cv LGS Document 20 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 8. : Plaintiffs, : : : Defendants. : Case 113-cv-01787-LGS Document 20 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- X BLOOMBERG, L.P.,

More information

Case No. 2:13-cv-1157 OPINION AND ORDER

Case No. 2:13-cv-1157 OPINION AND ORDER Duncan v. Husted Doc. 39 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Richard Duncan, : Plaintiff, : v. : Secretary of State Jon A. Husted, Case No. 2:13-cv-1157

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION. v. Case No: 5:13-MC-004-WTH-PRL ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION. v. Case No: 5:13-MC-004-WTH-PRL ORDER Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rex Venture Group, LLC et al Doc. 13 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, PLAINTIFF, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION v. Case

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Case No. 19-cv HSG 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Case No. 19-cv HSG 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PG&E CORPORATION, et al., Case No. -cv-00-hsg 0 v. Plaintiffs, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY IGEA BRAIN AND SPINE, P.A. v. HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY et al Doc. 17 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY IGEA BRAIN AND SPINE, P.A., on assignment

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Doc. 210 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:16-cv-05664-PD Document 37 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-5664-PD

More information

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 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

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs, Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs, Defendant. Case :-cv-0-bas-jlb Document 0 Filed /0/ Page of 0 0 ROBERT STEVENS and STEVEN VANDEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CORELOGIC, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN

More information

Case 1:14-cv PKC-PK Document 93 Filed 01/03/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 934

Case 1:14-cv PKC-PK Document 93 Filed 01/03/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 934 Case 1:14-cv-03121-PKC-PK Document 93 Filed 01/03/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 934 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------x DOUGLAYR

More information

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 138 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:2059

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 138 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:2059 Case: 1:13-cv-01418 Document #: 138 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:2059 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LISLEWOOD CORPORATION, v. AT&T CORPORATION, AT&T

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WINDING CREEK SOLAR LLC, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL PEEVEY, et al., Defendants. Case No. -cv-0-jd ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED

More information

Nos (L), IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.

Nos (L), IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Appeal: 13-2419 Doc: 46-1 Filed: 02/11/2014 Pg: 1 of 11 Nos. 13-2419 (L), 13-2424 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DOUGLAS

More information

Case 1:07-cv RAE Document 32 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:07-cv RAE Document 32 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 7 Case 1:07-cv-00146-RAE Document 32 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv MOC-DSC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv MOC-DSC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv-00540-MOC-DSC LUANNA SCOTT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vs. ) ORDER ) FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., )

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCTION Kenny v. Pacific Investment Management Company LLC et al Doc. 0 1 1 ROBERT KENNY, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; PIMCO INVESTMENTS LLC, Defendants.

More information

Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures

Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures RESOLUTIONS, LLC s GUIDE TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures 1. Scope of Rules The RESOLUTIONS, LLC Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures ("Rules") govern binding

More information

Case 2:16-cv CDJ Document 29 Filed 08/09/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:16-cv CDJ Document 29 Filed 08/09/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:16-cv-04249-CDJ Document 29 Filed 08/09/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA BALA CITY LINE, LLC, : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, : : v. : No.:

More information

Case 3:15-cv MHL Document 80 Filed 03/09/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 1262

Case 3:15-cv MHL Document 80 Filed 03/09/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 1262 Case :-cv-00-mhl Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of PageID# IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, ) ) Plaintiff, )

More information

Case 2:16-cv SDW-SCM Document 97 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID: 1604 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 2:16-cv SDW-SCM Document 97 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID: 1604 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 2:16-cv-01608-SDW-SCM Document 97 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID: 1604 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY LEGENDS MANAGEMENT CO., LLC, v. Plaintiff,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, PREMIUM BEEF FEEDERS, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No. 13-CV-1168-EFM-TJJ MEMORANDUM AND

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Hagan v. Harris et al Doc. 110 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DAMONT HAGAN, : Civil No. 1:13-CV-2731 : Plaintiff : (Magistrate Judge Carlson) : v. : : QUENTIN

More information

Case 3:06-cv JAP-TJB Document 62 Filed 07/22/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 3:06-cv JAP-TJB Document 62 Filed 07/22/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 3:06-cv-02319-JAP-TJB Document 62 Filed 07/22/2008 Page 1 of 13 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : TRENTON METROPOLITAN AREA : LOCAL OF THE AMERICAN

More information

Case 3:10-cv MLC -DEA Document 10 Filed 06/24/10 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 112

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)

More information

Case 3:15-cv BTM-BLM Document 6 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 7

Case 3:15-cv BTM-BLM Document 6 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 7 Case :-cv-0-btm-blm Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, v. Plaintiff, JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address..., Defendant. Case

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO MC-MOORE/SIMONTON ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO MC-MOORE/SIMONTON ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION Echostar Satellite, L.L.C. et al v. Viewtech, Inc. et al Doc. 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.10-60069-MC-MOORE/SIMONTON ECHOSTAR SATELLITE, et al., v. Plaintiffs,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and PHILIPS LIGHTING NORTH AMERICA CORP., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 14-12298-DJC WANGS ALLIANCE CORP., d/b/a WAC LIGHTING

More information

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ANSWER OF THE INDEPENDENT MARKET MONITOR FOR PJM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ANSWER OF THE INDEPENDENT MARKET MONITOR FOR PJM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Panda Stonewall LLC ) ) ) Docket No. ER17-1821-002 To: The Honorable Suzanne Krolikowski Presiding Administrative Law Judge ANSWER

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-COHN/SELTZER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-COHN/SELTZER Remington v. Newbridge Securities Corp. Doc. 143 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 13-60384-CIV-COHN/SELTZER URSULA FINKEL, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. Case No: 8:16-cv-1194-MSS-TGW FUJIFILM

More information

Case 3:04-cv MLC-TJB Document 71 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 3:04-cv MLC-TJB Document 71 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 3:04-cv-02593-MLC-TJB Document 71 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 1 of 11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : ASCH WEBHOSTING, INC., : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-2593 (MLC)

More information

231 F.R.D. 343 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

231 F.R.D. 343 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. 231 F.R.D. 343 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. 1 Definition No. 5 provides that identify when used in regard to a communication includes providing the substance of the communication.

More information

Case 0:10-cv WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2011 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 0:10-cv WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2011 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 0:10-cv-61985-WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2011 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GARDEN-AIRE VILLAGE SOUTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC., a Florida

More information

Case 2:13-cv MMB Document 173 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:13-cv MMB Document 173 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:13-cv-05101-MMB Document 173 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TALBOT TODD SMITH CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 13-5101 UNILIFE CORPORATION,

More information

Case 2:10-cv TFM-CRE Document 99 Filed 05/31/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:10-cv TFM-CRE Document 99 Filed 05/31/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:10-cv-00131-TFM-CRE Document 99 Filed 05/31/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. JASON SOBEK, Plaintiff,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No: 8:16-cv-3110-MSS-TGW EIZO, INC., Defendant. / ORDER THIS

More information

Case: 1:16-cv CAB Doc #: 25 Filed: 07/25/17 1 of 7. PageID #: 253 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case: 1:16-cv CAB Doc #: 25 Filed: 07/25/17 1 of 7. PageID #: 253 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Case: 1:16-cv-02613-CAB Doc #: 25 Filed: 07/25/17 1 of 7. PageID #: 253 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION PAULETTE LUSTER, et al., CASE NO. 1:16CV2613 Plaintiffs,

More information

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Nos. 13-2419, 13-2424 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC, et al., v. DOUGLAS R.M. NAZARIAN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, and Defendants-Appellants, CPV MARYLAND,

More information

Case 1:08-cv JSR Document 151 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 14

Case 1:08-cv JSR Document 151 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 14 Case 1:08-cv-02875-JSR Document 151 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------x LARYSSA JOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, 08 Civ.

More information

Motion to Compel ( Defendant s Motion ) and Plaintiff Joseph Lee Gay s ( Plaintiff ) Motion

Motion to Compel ( Defendant s Motion ) and Plaintiff Joseph Lee Gay s ( Plaintiff ) Motion STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA LINCOLN COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 13 CVS 383 JOSEPH LEE GAY, Individually and On Behalf of All Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PEOPLES

More information

Case 1:17-cv WYD-MEH Document 9 Filed 09/22/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:17-cv WYD-MEH Document 9 Filed 09/22/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case 1:17-cv-02280-WYD-MEH Document 9 Filed 09/22/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-02280-WYD-MEH ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

More information

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. arbitrable. Concluding that the arbitrator, not the court, should decide this issue, the court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. arbitrable. Concluding that the arbitrator, not the court, should decide this issue, the court Case 3:16-cv-00264-D Document 41 Filed 06/27/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID 623 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION A & C DISCOUNT PHARMACY, L.L.C. d/b/a MEDCORE

More information

Case 1:14-cv TSC-DAR Document 27 Filed 12/15/14 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:14-cv TSC-DAR Document 27 Filed 12/15/14 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:14-cv-00857-TSC-DAR Document 27 Filed 12/15/14 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, INC., AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL

More information

Case 2:18-cv JMV-JBC Document 13 Filed 02/11/19 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 374

Case 2:18-cv JMV-JBC Document 13 Filed 02/11/19 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 374 Case 2:18-cv-08330-JMV-JBC Document 13 Filed 02/11/19 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 374 Not for Publication UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY PEDRO ROBERTS, on behalfofhimself and all other similarly

More information

Case 1:11-cv ALC-AJP Document 175 Filed 04/26/12 Page 1 of 5 Please visit

Case 1:11-cv ALC-AJP Document 175 Filed 04/26/12 Page 1 of 5 Please visit Case 1:11-cv-01279-ALC-AJP Document 175 Filed 04/26/12 Page 1 of 5 Please visit www.itlawtoday.com Case 1:11-cv-01279-ALC-AJP Document 175 Filed 04/26/12 Page 2 of 5 Plaintiffs object to the February 8

More information

A Short Guide to the Prosecution of Market Manipulation in the Energy Industry: CFTC, FERC, and FTC

A Short Guide to the Prosecution of Market Manipulation in the Energy Industry: CFTC, FERC, and FTC JULY 2008, RELEASE TWO A Short Guide to the Prosecution of Market Manipulation in the Energy Industry: CFTC, FERC, and FTC Layne Kruse and Amy Garzon Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. A Short Guide to the Prosecution

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HELLER S GAS, INC. 415-CV-01350 Plaintiff, (Judge Brann) V. INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF HANNOVER LTD, and INTERNATIONAL

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SANDISK CORP., v. Plaintiff, OPINION

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION FieldTurf USA, Inc. et al v. TenCate Thiolon Middle East, LLC et al Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION FIELDTURF USA, INC., FIELDTURF INC. AND

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. No. 5:17-CV-150-D

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. No. 5:17-CV-150-D IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:17-CV-150-D IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN HOLTON B. SHEPHERD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. O R

More information

Case 8:12-cv JDW-EAJ Document 112 Filed 10/25/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2875 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Case 8:12-cv JDW-EAJ Document 112 Filed 10/25/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2875 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Case 8:12-cv-00557-JDW-EAJ Document 112 Filed 10/25/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2875 BURTON W. WIAND, as Court-Appointed Receiver for Scoop Real Estate, L.P., et al. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL, and JOHNS HOPKINS BAYVIEW MEDICAL CENTER, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. RDB-03-3333 CAREFIRST

More information

Case 3:07-cv JST Document 5169 Filed 06/08/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:07-cv JST Document 5169 Filed 06/08/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :0-cv-0-JST Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Order Relates To: ALL DIRECT PURCHASER

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 2:06-cv-03462-WJM-MF Document 161 Filed 10/20/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 5250 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DAIICHI SANKYO, LIMITED and DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., v. Plaintiffs

More information

Case5:12-cv LHK Document501 Filed05/09/13 Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Case5:12-cv LHK Document501 Filed05/09/13 Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case:-cv-000-LHK Document0 Filed0/0/ Page of 0 0 APPLE INC., a California corporation v. Plaintiff, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., a Korean business entity; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York

More information

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 95 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:328

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 95 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:328 Case: 1:16-cv-01240 Document #: 95 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:328 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Florence Mussat, M.D. S.C., individually

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Polaris Industries Inc., Case No. 10-cv-4362 (JNE/HB) Plaintiff, v. ORDER CFMOTO Powersports, Inc., CFMOTO America, Inc., John T. O Mara & Angela M. O

More information

GT Crystal Systems, LLC and GT Solar Hong Kong, Ltd. Chandra Khattak, Kedar Gupta, and Advanced RenewableEnergy Co., LLC. NO.

GT Crystal Systems, LLC and GT Solar Hong Kong, Ltd. Chandra Khattak, Kedar Gupta, and Advanced RenewableEnergy Co., LLC. NO. MERRIMACK, SS SUPERIOR COURT GT Crystal Systems, LLC and GT Solar Hong Kong, Ltd. v. Chandra Khattak, Kedar Gupta, and Advanced RenewableEnergy Co., LLC. NO. 2011-CV-332 ORDER The Defendants Advanced RenewableEnergy

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Case: 1:14-cv-00493-TSB Doc #: 41 Filed: 03/30/16 Page: 1 of 12 PAGEID #: 574 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, : Case No. 1:14-cv-493 : Plaintiff,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION Case 7:03-cv-00102-D Document 858 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID 23956 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION VICTORIA KLEIN, et al., Plaintiffs,

More information

Case: 4:11-cv JAR Doc. #: 93 Filed: 04/20/17 Page: 1 of 7 PageID #: 710

Case: 4:11-cv JAR Doc. #: 93 Filed: 04/20/17 Page: 1 of 7 PageID #: 710 Case: 4:11-cv-00523-JAR Doc. #: 93 Filed: 04/20/17 Page: 1 of 7 PageID #: 710 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT ) OF AMERICAN RIVER

More information

Case 2:14-cv JRG Document 68 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 2010

Case 2:14-cv JRG Document 68 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 2010 Case 2:14-cv-00639-JRG Document 68 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 2010 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION SYNERON MEDICAL LTD. v. Plaintiff,

More information

A Primer on 30(b)(6) Depositions

A Primer on 30(b)(6) Depositions A Primer on 30(b)(6) Depositions A Defense Perspective David L. Johnson Kyle Young MILLER & MARTIN PLLC Nashville, Tennessee dljohnson@millermartin.com kyoung@millermartin.com At first blush, selecting

More information

EVERSeURCE. ~Ri\1~ ~-~4~O. August 21, 2015

EVERSeURCE. ~Ri\1~ ~-~4~O. August 21, 2015 ~Ri\1~ ~-~4~O EVERSeURCE 780N Commercial Street ENERGY Manchester, NH 03105-0330 Robert A. Bersak Chief Regulatory Counsel 603-634-3355 robert.bersak@eversource.com Ms. Debra A. Howland Executive Director

More information

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION. North American Electric Reliability ) Docket No. RR16- Corporation )

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION. North American Electric Reliability ) Docket No. RR16- Corporation ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION North American Electric Reliability ) Docket No. RR16- Corporation ) PETITION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN ELECTRIC RELIABILITY CORPORATION

More information

Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document 150 Filed 08/23/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID 3418

Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document 150 Filed 08/23/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID 3418 Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 150 Filed 08/23/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID 3418 PARKERVISION, INC., vs. Plaintiff, QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

More information

Case 3:18-cv FLW-TJB Document 69 Filed 04/18/19 Page 1 of 5 PageID: April 18, 2019

Case 3:18-cv FLW-TJB Document 69 Filed 04/18/19 Page 1 of 5 PageID: April 18, 2019 Case 3:18-cv-02293-FLW-TJB Document 69 Filed 04/18/19 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 2215 VIA ECF U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse 402 East State Street

More information

Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 290 Filed: 06/21/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:7591

Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 290 Filed: 06/21/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:7591 Case: 1:10-cv-04387 Document #: 290 Filed: 06/21/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:7591 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION HELFERICH PATENT LICENSING, L.L.C.

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 17- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ALLCO FINANCE LIMITED, v. Petitioner, ROBERT KLEE, in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection,

More information

Case 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 338

Case 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 338 Case 2:15-cv-00961-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 338 NEXUSCARD INC., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION v. Plaintiff, BROOKSHIRE

More information

Case 2:11-cv RBS -DEM Document 63 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 1560

Case 2:11-cv RBS -DEM Document 63 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 1560 Case 2:11-cv-00546-RBS -DEM Document 63 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 1560 FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division AUG 1 4 2012 CLERK, US DISTRICT COURT NORFOLK,

More information

Case 1:17-mc DAB Document 28 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 20

Case 1:17-mc DAB Document 28 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 20 Case 1:17-mc-00105-DAB Document 28 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 20 Case 1:17-mc-00105-DAB Document 28 Filed 06/22/17 Page 2 of 20 but also DENIES Jones Day s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. Applicants may

More information

FORMATION OF CONTRACT INTENTION TO BE BOUND (ART. 14 CISG) - RELEVANCE OF PRACTICES BETWEEN THE PARTIES (ART. 8(2) & (3) CISG)

FORMATION OF CONTRACT INTENTION TO BE BOUND (ART. 14 CISG) - RELEVANCE OF PRACTICES BETWEEN THE PARTIES (ART. 8(2) & (3) CISG) FORMATION OF CONTRACT INTENTION TO BE BOUND (ART. 14 CISG) - RELEVANCE OF PRACTICES BETWEEN THE PARTIES (ART. 8(2) & (3) CISG) CHOICE-OF-LAW CLAUSE - AMOUNTING TO TERM MATERIALLY ALTERING ORIGINAL OFFER

More information

131 FERC 61,039 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

131 FERC 61,039 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 131 FERC 61,039 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and John R. Norris. The Detroit Edison Company

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION Case:-cv-0-SBA Document Filed// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ROBERT BOXER, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, vs.

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Catskill Mountainkeeper, Inc., Clean Air Council, Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society, Inc., Riverkeeper, Inc.,

More information

Case3:14-mc JD Document1 Filed10/30/14 Page1 of 13

Case3:14-mc JD Document1 Filed10/30/14 Page1 of 13 Case:-mc-00-JD Document Filed/0/ Page of DAVID H. KRAMER, State Bar No. ANTHONY J WEIBELL, State Bar No. 0 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 0 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 0-0 Telephone:

More information

Case 0:16-cv WPD Document 64 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2017 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 0:16-cv WPD Document 64 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2017 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 0:16-cv-61856-WPD Document 64 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2017 Page 1 of 11 JENNIFER SANDOVAL, vs. Plaintiff, RONALD R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.L., SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., and NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. United States of America et al v. IPC The Hospitalist Company, Inc. et al Doc. 91 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION United States of America, ex rel. Bijan Oughatiyan,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION. v. Case No: 2:15-cv-629-FtM-99CM ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION. v. Case No: 2:15-cv-629-FtM-99CM ORDER Ace American Insurance Company v. AJAX Paving Industries of Florida, LLC Doc. 49 ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION v.

More information