QUESTION Does the federal court in State A have removal jurisdiction over the case? Explain.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "QUESTION Does the federal court in State A have removal jurisdiction over the case? Explain."

Transcription

1 WRITING PROGRAM CIVIL PROCEDURE 33. QUESTION 5 The owner of a rare antique tapestry worth more than $1 million is a citizen of State A. The owner contacted a restorer, a citizen of State B, to restore the tapestry for $100,000. The owner and the restorer met in State A and negotiated a contract, but the final documents, prepared by the parties respective attorneys, were drafted and signed in State B. The contract has a forum selection clause that specifies that any litigation arising out of or relating to the contract must be commenced in State B. The restorer repaired the tapestry in State B and then informed the owner that the restoration was complete. The owner picked up the tapestry and paid the restorer $100,000. Subsequently, the owner discovered that the restorer had done hardly any work on the tapestry. Despite the forum selection clause in the contract, the owner filed suit against the restorer in a state court in State A, claiming breach of contract. The owner s suit sought rescission of the contract and a return of the full contract price $100,000. The laws of State A and State B are different on two relevant points. First, State A courts do not enforce forum selection clauses that would oust the jurisdiction of State A courts, regarding such clauses as against public policy; State B courts always enforce forum selection clauses. Second, State A would allow contract rescission on these facts; State B would not allow rescission but would allow recovery of damages. Under the conflict of laws rules of both State A and State B, a state court would apply its own law to resolve both the forum selection clause issue and the rescission issue. After the owner filed suit in State A court, the restorer removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of State A and then moved for a change of venue to the United States District Court for the District of State B, citing the contractual forum selection clause in support of the motion. (There is only one United States District Court in each state.) The owner moved for remand on the ground that the federal court did not have removal jurisdiction over the action. Alternatively, the owner argued against the motion to transfer on the basis that the forum selection clause was invalid under State A law. 1. Does the federal court in State A have removal jurisdiction over the case? Explain. 2. Should the change of venue motion, seeking transfer of the case to the federal court in State B, be granted? Explain. 3. Would a change of venue affect the law to be applied in resolving the rescission issue? Explain. February 2012

2 34. WRITING PROGRAM CIVIL PROCEDURE SAMPLE OUTLINE FOR ANSWER TO QUESTION 5 1. Removal Jurisdiction Case removable if original jdx in fed ct (primarily) DoC or FQ jdx; restriction on DoC removal if D citizen of forum Here, claim based on state K law; no FQ Case is between citizen of A and citizen of B, and K was for $100,000 D is citizen of State B, case filed in A DoC jdx exists Ct has removal jurisdiction 2. Change of Venue Ct must determine whether V (venue) is proper and whether any basis for transfer of venue exists. V is procedural and governed by fed V statutes. V was proper; removed case is to fed ct embracing state ct. Forum selection clause does not change this result. Fed law is to enforce forum selection clauses Under V statutes, when V is proper, fed ct may transfer to another V where action might have been brought (based on convenience) or to which ptys consented When the parties have agreed to a valid forum selection clause, a district court should ordinarily transfer the case to the forum specified in that clause. Only under extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties should a section 1404(a) motion be denied. Rare to transfer only on public interest factors Here, the ptys consented to jdx in State B b/c of forum selection clause in the contract. The choice will be enforced unless public interest factors dictate otherwise. The inconvenience of State B to O, and his choice of State A as a forum, will not be considered because those are private interest factors There are no public interest factors in play under the facts. Although State A (the res of O and place of neg) is as convenient as State B (the res of R and place of perform), the forum selection clause points to a transfer The presence of the forum selection clause points to a transfer of venue to a B, in the interests of justice. 3. Law Applied on Change of Venue Under Erie, fed ct must apply substantive state law in DoC case Fed ct in B will be required to apply state rules Ordinarily, transferee ct must apply law of transferor ct when transfer based solely on convenience, including choice of law rules However, when transfer based on forum selection clause, law of transferee court is applied Transfer here based on forum selection clause Fed ct in B (transferee) will apply B law; law on rescission will change Change of venue affects the law to be applied

3 WRITING PROGRAM CIVIL PROCEDURE 35. ANSWER TO QUESTION 5 1. Removal jurisdiction: The federal court in State A has removal jurisdiction over the case. Given that a case may be removed only if it could have been originally filed in federal court, the main issue here is whether diversity or federal question subject matter jurisdiction exists. Generally, a defendant in a state court case may remove that case to federal court if it could have been filed originally in federal court (i.e., a federal court would have had subject matter jurisdiction over the case). Removal is accomplished by filing a petition for removal within 30 days of formal receipt of the complaint. However, a case is not removable on the basis of diversity if any defendant is a citizen of the forum state. The main two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction are federal question jurisdiction and diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction is available when the plaintiff s well-pleaded complaint sets forth a claim that arises under federal law. Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction requires that complete diversity of citizenship exists. Complete diversity exists if no plaintiff shares state citizenship with any defendant, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interest and costs, as alleged in good faith in the plaintiff s complaint. In the instant case, the plaintiff ( Owner ) is suing the defendant ( Restorer ) in State A for rescission of a contract and the return of the full contract price ($100,000) for failure to perform under a contract for restoration of a rare tapestry. Given that the cause of action is based on state contract law, no federal question has been presented. The facts also state that Owner is a citizen of State A and that Restorer is a citizen of State B. Thus, complete diversity exists. Furthermore, Owner is seeking the return of the full contract price of $100,000, so the amount in controversy requirement is met. Restorer is not a citizen of the forum state (State A); as a result, he is not prevented from removing the case. Thus, the case could have been originally filed in federal court, and no bar to removal exists (assuming that the petition for removal was timely). 2. Transfer of venue: The motion to transfer venue to the federal court in State B should be granted. To transfer venue, the court must determine whether venue has been properly laid, and, if so, whether any basis for transfer of venue exists. As an initial matter, under the Erie doctrine, a federal court sitting in diversity must apply substantive state law, but it will apply federal procedural law. Generally speaking, if there is a federal directive on point, such a federal rule of procedure or statute, and it is valid, it will be applied. In the instant case, venue is strictly a procedural matter that is exclusively determined by federal venue laws. Federal law determines the enforceability of forum selection clauses, and federal law will generally allow for enforcement of forum selection clauses. Venue here was proper. Under 28 U.S.C. section 1441(a), when a case is removed from state court to federal court, venue is set in the federal district court that embraces the state court in which the action was pending. Thus, the federal district court was a place of proper venue. The

4 36. WRITING PROGRAM CIVIL PROCEDURE presence of a forum selection clause does not make venue in State A improper under the venue statutes. Ordinarily, under the venue statutes, when venue in the original action is proper, the federal court, in the interests of justice, may (but does not have to) transfer the case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses to another venue in which the action might have been brought (considering the rules for venue, personal jurisdiction, and subject matter jurisdiction) or to which the parties have consented. However, the formula is slightly changed when transfer is based on a forum selection clause. When the parties have agreed to a valid forum selection clause, a district court should ordinarily transfer the case to the forum specified in that clause. Only under extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties should a section 1404(a) motion be denied. Here, the parties arguably consented to jurisdiction in State B by agreeing to the forum selection clause in the contract. The choice will be enforced unless public interest factors dictate otherwise. In the instant case, the inconvenience of the litigation in State B to owner, and his choice of State A as a forum, will not be considered because those are a private interest factors that play no role in a transfer based on a forum selection clause. There are no public interest factors apparent under the facts. On the whole, although State A (the residence of owner and place of negotiation) seems as convenient a forum as State B (the residence of restorer and place of performance), the presence of the forum selection clause points to a transfer of venue to a federal court in State B, in the interests of justice. 3. Law applicable after transfer: The transfer of venue does affect the law to be applied in resolving the rescission issue. At issue is the effect that transferring venue has on the law to be applied in a case. Under Erie, a federal court sitting in diversity is required to apply the substantive rules of the forum state. Ordinarily, under the venue statutes, a transfer solely on convenience grounds carries to the transferee court the originally applicable law (i.e., the law of the transferor court), including any choice of law rules. However, an exception exists when transfer is based on a forum selection clause. In such cases, the law of the transferee court (i.e., the court selected in the forum selection clause) is applied rather than the law of the transferor court. Here, because the case was transferred based on the forum selection clause, the federal court in State B will apply State B law. As a result, the State B rules on rescission will apply in the federal court, and thus the transfer of venue would affect the choice of law.

5 1. Removal Jurisdiction WRITING PROGRAM CIVIL PROCEDURE 37. SELF-SCORING CHECKLIST FOR QUESTION 5 The main issue is whether diversity or federal question jurisdiction exists A defendant in a state court case may remove that case to federal court if it could have been filed originally in federal court The petition for removal must be filed within 30 days of formal receipt of the complaint Federal Question Jurisdiction Federal question jurisdiction is available when the plaintiff s well-pleaded complaint sets forth a claim that arises under federal law No federal question has been presented because the claim is one based on state law Diversity Jurisdiction A case is not removable on the basis of diversity if any defendant is a citizen of the forum state Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, excluding interest and costs Complete diversity will exist if no plaintiff shares state citizenship with any defendant The amount in controversy must be alleged in good faith in the plaintiff s complaint Owner is a citizen of State A and Restorer is a citizen of State B Complete diversity exists Owner is seeking the return of the full contract price of $100,000 The amount in controversy has been met The federal court has removal jurisdiction over the case

6 38. WRITING PROGRAM CIVIL PROCEDURE Restorer is not prevented from removing the case because he is not a citizen of the forum state 2. Transfer of Venue The motion to transfer venue to the federal court in State B should be granted To transfer venue, the court must determine whether venue has been properly laid, and, if so, whether any basis for transfer of venue exists Under the Erie doctrine, a federal court sitting in diversity must apply substantive state law, but it will apply federal procedural law If there is a federal directive on point, such a federal rule of procedure or statute, and it is valid, it will be applied In the instant case, venue is strictly a procedural matter that is exclusively determined by federal venue laws Federal law determines the enforceability of forum selection clauses Federal law will generally allow for enforcement of forum selection clauses. Whether Venue Was Proper Venue here was proper Under 28 U.S.C. section 1441(a), when a case is removed from state court to federal court, venue is set in the federal district court that embraces the state court in which the action was pending Thus, the federal district court was a place of proper venue Forum Selection Clause The presence of a forum selection clause does not make venue in State A improper under the venue statutes. Under the venue statutes, when venue in the original action is proper, the federal court, in the interests of justice, may transfer the case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses to another venue in which the action might have been brought (considering the rules for venue, personal jurisdiction, and subject matter jurisdiction) or to which the parties have consented

7 WRITING PROGRAM CIVIL PROCEDURE 39. When the parties have agreed to a valid forum-selection clause, a district court should ordinarily transfer the case to the forum specified in that clause. Only under extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties should a 1404(a) motion be denied. Public interest factors will rarely oust the parties choice of forum in a forum selection clause. Here, the parties consented to jurisdiction in State B by agreeing to the forum selection clause in the contract The choice of forum will be enforced unless public interest factors dictate otherwise The inconvenience of the litigation in State B to Owner, and his choice of State A as a forum, will not be considered There are no public interest factors apparent under the facts The presence of the forum selection clause points to a transfer of venue to a federal court in State B, in the interests of justice. 3. Law Applicable After Transfer The transfer of venue affects the law to be applied in resolving the rescission issue. At issue is the effect that transferring venue has on the law to be applied in a case Under Erie, a federal court sitting in diversity is required to apply the substantive rules of the forum state. Ordinarily, under the venue statutes, a transfer solely on convenience grounds carries to the transferee court the originally applicable law (i.e., the law of the transferor court), including any choice of law rules. When transfer is based on a forum selection clause, the law of the transferee court (i.e., the forum selected in the forum selection clause) is applied rather than the law of the transferor court Because the case was transferred based on the forum selection clause, the federal court in State B will apply State B law.

8 40. WRITING PROGRAM CIVIL PROCEDURE As a result, the State B rules on rescission will apply in the federal court PASSING SCALE 0 14 Significantly below passing Below passing Slightly below passing Passing Above passing 38 + Significantly above passing

Mastering Civil Procedure Checklist

Mastering Civil Procedure Checklist Mastering Civil Procedure Checklist For cases originally filed in federal court, is there an anchor claim, over which the court has personal jurisdiction, venue, and subject matter jurisdiction? If not,

More information

J S - 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. CASE NO. CV JST (FMOx) GLOBAL DÉCOR, INC. and THOMAS H. WOLF.

J S - 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. CASE NO. CV JST (FMOx) GLOBAL DÉCOR, INC. and THOMAS H. WOLF. Case :-cv-00-jls-fmo Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0 GLOBAL DÉCOR, INC. and THOMAS H. WOLF vs. Plaintiffs, THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL

More information

2. In considering whether specific jurisdiction exists, the courts consider: a. Whether the defendant gained benefits and privileges by the contract;

2. In considering whether specific jurisdiction exists, the courts consider: a. Whether the defendant gained benefits and privileges by the contract; Civil Procedure I. Personal Jurisdiction a. General principals i. A defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of his home state, wherever he may be served. The defendant s home state is 1. For

More information

CIVIL PROCEDURE ESSAY #5. Morgan additionally asserted the following as damages: Blueprints: $20,000 Land Purchase: $20,000 Grading of Land: $20,000

CIVIL PROCEDURE ESSAY #5. Morgan additionally asserted the following as damages: Blueprints: $20,000 Land Purchase: $20,000 Grading of Land: $20,000 CIVIL PROCEDURE ESSAY #5. Morgan filed a claim in Federal Court in State A where he had his only residence, stating, inter alia, that Builders, Inc. had breached a contract to build his house. More specifically,

More information

Civil Procedure Darden

Civil Procedure Darden Civil Procedure Darden Is there Personal Jurisdiction? o Is defendant a resident of proposed state? o If it s a corporation was it incorporated or have its principal place of business in the proposed forum?

More information

REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT. Seminar Presentation Rob Foos

REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT. Seminar Presentation Rob Foos REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT Seminar Presentation Rob Foos Attorney Strategy o The removal of cases from state to federal courts cannot be found in the Constitution of the United States; it is purely statutory

More information

Analysing the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Clarification Act of

Analysing the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Clarification Act of Analysing the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Clarification Act of 2011 Venue Layne Kruse, Darryl Andersonn and John Byron, Fulbright & Jaworski - Thursday, 02 February 2012 00:00 http://www.cdr-news.com/17620

More information

Chapter 3. Federal Civil Litigation. A. Introduction. 1 To Be Published in a German Law Book Copyrighted do NOT copy or distribute

Chapter 3. Federal Civil Litigation. A. Introduction. 1 To Be Published in a German Law Book Copyrighted do NOT copy or distribute 1 To Be Published in a German Law Book Chapter 3 Federal Civil Litigation A. Introduction 1) This chapter provides an overview of civil litigation in the federal court system in the United States. The

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cv JIC

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cv JIC Case: 16-13477 Date Filed: 10/09/2018 Page: 1 of 14 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-13477 D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cv-60197-JIC MICHAEL HISEY, Plaintiff

More information

ESSAY APPROACH. Bar Exam Doctor BAREXAMDOCTOR.COM. CIVIL PROCEDURE FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE CALIFORNIA CIVIL PROCEDURE

ESSAY APPROACH. Bar Exam Doctor BAREXAMDOCTOR.COM.   CIVIL PROCEDURE FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE CALIFORNIA CIVIL PROCEDURE ESSAY APPROACH www.barexamdoctor.com CIVIL PROCEDURE FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE CALIFORNIA CIVIL PROCEDURE CIVIL PROCEDURE ESSAY (FEDERAL) I. DOES THE CT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE DISPUTE? a. Does

More information

Plaintiff, v. DECISION AND ORDER 13-CV-310S RON HISH, ARIZONA UTILITY INSPECTION SERVICES, INC., and LINDA HISH, I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, v. DECISION AND ORDER 13-CV-310S RON HISH, ARIZONA UTILITY INSPECTION SERVICES, INC., and LINDA HISH, I. INTRODUCTION Osmose Utilities Services, Inc. v. Hish et al Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK OSMOSE UTILITIES SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. DECISION AND ORDER 13-CV-310S RON HISH, ARIZONA

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN BRETT DANIELS and BRETT DANIELS PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 15-CV-1334 SIMON PAINTER, TIMOTHY LAWSON, INTERNATIONAL SPECIAL ATTRACTIONS,

More information

Choice of Law Provisions

Choice of Law Provisions Personal Jurisdiction and Forum Selection Choice of Law Provisions By Christopher Renzulli and Peter Malfa Construction contracts: recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions redefine the importance of personal

More information

MBE Civil Procedure Sample Test Questions

MBE Civil Procedure Sample Test Questions MBE Civil Procedure Sample Test Questions The National Conference of Bar Examiners provides these Civil Procedure sample questions as an educational tool for candidates seeking admission to the bar within

More information

SEPERAC UBE FINAL REVIEW OUTLINE (BASED ON THE UBE MASTER HIGH PRIORITY CATEGORIES ONLY) FEBRUARY 2018 UBE EXAM RELEASE DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 2018

SEPERAC UBE FINAL REVIEW OUTLINE (BASED ON THE UBE MASTER HIGH PRIORITY CATEGORIES ONLY) FEBRUARY 2018 UBE EXAM RELEASE DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 2018 SEPERAC UBE FINAL REVIEW OUTLINE (BASED ON THE UBE MASTER HIGH PRIORITY CATEGORIES ONLY) FEBRUARY 2018 UBE EXAM RELEASE DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 2018 While there are 364 testable MBE/MEE categories according

More information

Assignment. Federal Question Jurisdiction. Text Problem Case: Louisville and Nashville Railroad v. Mottley

Assignment. Federal Question Jurisdiction. Text Problem Case: Louisville and Nashville Railroad v. Mottley Assignment Federal Question Jurisdiction Text... 1-5 Problem.... 6-7 Case: Louisville and Nashville Railroad v. Mottley... 8-10 Statutes: 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1442(a), 1257 Federal Question Jurisdiction 28

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION 5:07cv52

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION 5:07cv52 Esancy v. Crestmark Bank Doc. 6 Case 5:07-cv-00052-DLH Document 6 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION 5:07cv52

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION RD Rod, LLC et al v. Montana Classic Cars, LLC Doc. 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION RD ROD, LLC, as Successor in Interest to GRAND BANK, and RONALD

More information

Present: Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, and Lemons, JJ.

Present: Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, and Lemons, JJ. Present: Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, and Lemons, JJ. WELDING, INC. v. Record No. 000836 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY March 2, 2001 BLAND COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT

More information

Home Run Motions JAMES WAGSTAFFE THE WAGSTAFFE GROUP PRACTICE GUIDE: FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL (LEXISNEXIS 2018) June 28 th, 2018

Home Run Motions JAMES WAGSTAFFE THE WAGSTAFFE GROUP PRACTICE GUIDE: FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL (LEXISNEXIS 2018) June 28 th, 2018 Home Run Motions JAMES WAGSTAFFE THE WAGSTAFFE GROUP PRACTICE GUIDE: FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL (LEXISNEXIS 2018) June 28 th, 2018 wagstaffe@kerrwagstaffe.com @JWagstaffeLxNx JURISDICTIONAL CHECKLIST

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 Brent H. Blakely (SBN ) bblakely@blakelylawgroup.com BLAKELY LAW GROUP Parkview Avenue, Suite 0 Manhattan Beach, California 0 Telephone: (0) -00 Facsimile:

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. Plaintiff, v. Case No. 18-CV-799 DECISION AND ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. Plaintiff, v. Case No. 18-CV-799 DECISION AND ORDER Brilliant DPI Inc v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions USA Inc. et al Doc. 44 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN BRILLIANT DPI, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 18-CV-799 KONICA MINOLTA

More information

FULL OUTLINE. Bar Exam Doctor BAREXAMDOCTOR.COM. CIVIL PROCEDURE FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE CALIFORNIA CIVIL PROCEDURE

FULL OUTLINE. Bar Exam Doctor BAREXAMDOCTOR.COM.  CIVIL PROCEDURE FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE CALIFORNIA CIVIL PROCEDURE FULL OUTLINE www.barexamdoctor.com CIVIL PROCEDURE FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE CALIFORNIA CIVIL PROCEDURE I. PERSONAL JURISDICTION a. Do federal courts need personal jdx over the parties? Yes. b. How is it

More information

Case 4:05-cv HFB Document 44 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 1 of 6

Case 4:05-cv HFB Document 44 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 1 of 6 Case 4:05-cv-04081-HFB Document 44 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION GEORGIA HENSLEY, individually and as class representative

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Sherfey et al v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION CHAD SHERFEY, ET AL., ) CASE NO.1:16CV776 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE CHRISTOPHER

More information

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 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

More information

TO REMOVE OR NOT TO REMOVE FEDERAL COURT, VENUE, AND OTHER JURISDICTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

TO REMOVE OR NOT TO REMOVE FEDERAL COURT, VENUE, AND OTHER JURISDICTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS TO REMOVE OR NOT TO REMOVE FEDERAL COURT, VENUE, AND OTHER JURISDICTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Shane A. Lawson, Esq. slawson@gallaghersharp.com I. WHO CAN REMOVE? A. Only Defendants of the Plaintiff s Claims

More information

Case 2:18-cv JHS Document 26 Filed 11/30/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:18-cv JHS Document 26 Filed 11/30/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:18-cv-01333-JHS Document 26 Filed 11/30/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ERIC SCALLA, v. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-1333 KWS, INC.,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION Fire Insurance Exchange as Subrogee of Sun Myung Hwang v. Target Corp...KET. CASE HAS BEEN REMANDED. Doc. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE,

More information

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 28 United States Code 1331. Federal question The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION Doe et al v. Kanakuk Ministries et al Doc. 57 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, Individually and as Next Friends of JOHN DOE I, a Minor, VS.

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case: 17-107 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 02/23/2017 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit In re: GOOGLE INC., Petitioner 2017-107 On Petition for Writ

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,853 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. FIFTH THIRD BANK, Appellee, ERIC M. MUATHE, Appellant.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,853 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. FIFTH THIRD BANK, Appellee, ERIC M. MUATHE, Appellant. NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 114,853 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS FIFTH THIRD BANK, Appellee, v. ERIC M. MUATHE, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2016. Affirmed. Appeal from Crawford

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:18-cv RJC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:18-cv RJC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:18-cv-00499-RJC In re: CHRISTOPHER DEE COTTON Case No. 14-30287 ALLISON HEDRICK COTTON Chapter 13 Debtors CHRISTOPHER

More information

Small Claims rules are covered in:

Small Claims rules are covered in: Small Claims rules are covered in: CCP 116.110-116.950 CHAPTER 5.5. SMALL CLAIMS COURT Article 1. General Provisions... 116.110-116.140 Article 2. Small Claims Court... 116.210-116.270 Article 3. Actions...

More information

JURISDICTION AND LOCAL RULES. Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C.A This is called federal

JURISDICTION AND LOCAL RULES. Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C.A This is called federal JURISDICTION AND LOCAL RULES Federal district courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C.A. 1331. This is called

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA BLUE RHINO GLOBAL SOURCING, INC. Plaintiff, v. 1:17CV69 BEST CHOICE PRODUCTS a/k/a SKY BILLIARDS, INC., Defendant. ORDER Plaintiff,

More information

Sports & Entertainment Management, LLC ("Paramount") and Counterclaim Defendant Alvin

Sports & Entertainment Management, LLC (Paramount) and Counterclaim Defendant Alvin Case 2:18-cv-00412-RAJ-RJK Document 19 Filed 12/07/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 235 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division PARAMOUNT SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL CASE NO. H MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL CASE NO. H MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION SCOTT BROWNING, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL CASE NO. H-10-4478 SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY and CAVALRY CONSTRUCTION CO., Defendants.

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TYMKOVICH, HOLLOWAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TYMKOVICH, HOLLOWAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit MASCARENAS ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 14, 2012 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of

More information

THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO REMAND [19]

THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO REMAND [19] Case 8:14-cv-01165-DOC-VBK Document 36 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:531 Title: DONNA L. HOLLOWAY V. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, ET AL. PRESENT: THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE Deborah Goltz Courtroom

More information

Appeal from the Order entered on April 25, 2003 in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Civil Division, No

Appeal from the Order entered on April 25, 2003 in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Civil Division, No 2004 PA Super 24 GARY HARRIS, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : v. : : HERBERT BRILL, WILLIAM T. JORDEN, : THOMAS DANA WATSON and : GENE RUMSEY, : : Appellees : No. 826 WDA 2003 Appeal

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit G. DAVID JANG, M.D., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION AND SCIMED LIFE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Petitioners. 2014-134 On Petition

More information

Case 8:15-cv EAK-TBM Document 18 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 15 PageID 151

Case 8:15-cv EAK-TBM Document 18 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 15 PageID 151 Case 8:15-cv-00434-EAK-TBM Document 18 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 15 PageID 151 MOISTTECH CORPORATION, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION vs. SENSORTECH SYSTEMS,

More information

Case 4:15-cv A Document 17 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 430

Case 4:15-cv A Document 17 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 430 Case 4:15-cv-00720-A Document 17 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 430 US D!',THiCT cor KT NORTiiER\J li!''trlctoftexas " IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT r- ---- ~-~ ' ---~ NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXA

More information

CASE NO CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON

CASE NO CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON GV Sales Group, Inc. v. Apparel Ltd., LLC Doc. 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 12-20753-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON GV SALES GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, vs. APPAREL LTD., LLC,

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 Case 3:18-cv-01549-JMM Document 8 Filed 10/11/18 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA NICHOLAS KING, JOAN KING, : No. 3:18cv1549 and KRISTEN KING, : Plaintiffs

More information

NICK S FISHMONGER HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD ALMON MANUEL ALVES DE SOUSA DEFENDANT CLAIM AND COUNTERCLAIM IN CONTRACT CONTRACT PROVIDING

NICK S FISHMONGER HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD ALMON MANUEL ALVES DE SOUSA DEFENDANT CLAIM AND COUNTERCLAIM IN CONTRACT CONTRACT PROVIDING IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (SOUTH EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 1606/01 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: NICK S FISHMONGER HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD PLAINTIFF AND ALMON MANUEL ALVES DE SOUSA DEFENDANT CLAIM

More information

TYPES OF MONETARY DAMAGES

TYPES OF MONETARY DAMAGES TYPES OF MONETARY DAMAGES A breach of contract entitles the non-breaching party to sue for money damages, including: Compensatory Damages: Damages that compensate the non-breaching party for the injuries

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTHERN DIVISION NO. 2:14-CV-60-FL ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTHERN DIVISION NO. 2:14-CV-60-FL ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Hovey, et al v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, et al Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTHERN DIVISION NO. 2:14-CV-60-FL DUCK VILLAGE OUTFITTERS;

More information

Case jal Doc 27 Filed 09/28/17 Entered 09/28/17 13:26:09 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

Case jal Doc 27 Filed 09/28/17 Entered 09/28/17 13:26:09 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Case 17-31593-jal Doc 27 Filed 09/28/17 Entered 09/28/17 13:26:09 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY IN RE: ) ) DORIS A. MORRIS ) CASE NO. 17-31593(1)(7) )

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-1471 CLEARPLAY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAX ABECASSIS and NISSIM CORP, Defendants-Appellants. David L. Mortensen, Stoel Rives LLP, of Salt

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CMA DESIGN & BUILD, INC., d/b/a CMA CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., UNPUBLISHED December 15, 2009 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 287789 Macomb Circuit Court WOOD COUNTY AIRPORT

More information

NOS , IN THE. JEFFERDS CORPORATION and CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. JEREMIAH BART MORRIS, Respondent.

NOS , IN THE. JEFFERDS CORPORATION and CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. JEREMIAH BART MORRIS, Respondent. NOS. 06-487, 06-503 IN THE JEFFERDS CORPORATION and CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. JEREMIAH BART MORRIS, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the West Virginia Supreme Court

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION VENTRONICS SYSTEMS, LLC Plaintiff, vs. DRAGER MEDICAL GMBH, ET AL. Defendants. CASE NO. 6:10-CV-582 PATENT CASE ORDER

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. ORDER v. Rudy Alarcon, et al., Defendants.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. ORDER v. Rudy Alarcon, et al., Defendants. Case :-cv-00-dlr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Dream Team Holdings LLC, et al., No. CV--00-PHX-DLR Plaintiffs, ORDER v. Rudy Alarcon,

More information

Aleph Towers, LLC et al v. Ambit Texas, LLC et al Doc. 128

Aleph Towers, LLC et al v. Ambit Texas, LLC et al Doc. 128 Aleph Towers, LLC et al v. Ambit Texas, LLC et al Doc. 128 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------){ YURI (URI) KASPAROV,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Case 3:15-cv-05448-EDL Document 26 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : RICKY R. FRANKLIN, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CIVIL

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Case :-md-0-dlr Document Filed 0 Page of 0 WO IN RE: Sprouts Farmers Market Incorporated Employee Data Security Breach Litigation, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. MDL

More information

Year in Review: Three Noteworthy Decisions of 2017 under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

Year in Review: Three Noteworthy Decisions of 2017 under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act LITIGATION CLIENT ALERT JANUARY 2018 Year in Review: Three Noteworthy Decisions of 2017 under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act In the United States, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) governs

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DARLENE K. HESSLER, Trustee of the Hessler Family Living Trust, v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Department of the Treasury,

More information

STAR TRANSPORT, INC. NO C-1228 VERSUS C/W PILOT CORPORATION, ET AL. NO CA-1393 COURT OF APPEAL C/W * * * * * * * STAR TRANSPORT, INC.

STAR TRANSPORT, INC. NO C-1228 VERSUS C/W PILOT CORPORATION, ET AL. NO CA-1393 COURT OF APPEAL C/W * * * * * * * STAR TRANSPORT, INC. STAR TRANSPORT, INC. VERSUS PILOT CORPORATION, ET AL. C/W STAR TRANSPORT, INC. VERSUS PILOT CORPORATION, ET AL. * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2014-C-1228 C/W NO. 2014-CA-1393 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT

More information

For Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy

For Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy Information or instructions: Petition for a Declaratory Judgment 1. This petition requests the court to render a judgment as a declaratory judgment. A declaratory judgment is used when a justicible controversy

More information

Chapter 5 VENUE, FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND REMOVAL

Chapter 5 VENUE, FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND REMOVAL 0001 VERSACOMP (4.2 ) COMPOSE2 (4.43) 10/21/05 (14:59) J:\VRS\DAT\01282\5.GML --- AG_NY.sty --CTP READY-- v2.8 10/30 --- POST 1 Chapter 5 VENUE, FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND REMOVAL Synopsis PART A: PROCEDURAL

More information

Mexican Civil & Commercial Legal Proceedings

Mexican Civil & Commercial Legal Proceedings Mexican Civil & Commercial Legal Proceedings Commercial Litigation Subject matter governed by Commerce Code. Suit brought by at least one commercial party. Suit based on a commercial activity such as a

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 1:33-av-00001 1:17-cv-00665-RMB-JS Document Document 8092 Filed 1 01/31/17 Filed 01/31/17 Page Page 1 of 51 PageID: of 5 PageID: 264333 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY INTERNATIONAL

More information

Tips and Suggestions from NICB. The Problem - Collusion

Tips and Suggestions from NICB. The Problem - Collusion California Small Claims Court Tips and Regulations Note: These comments apply only to the law as of February 2016 and any application after that date must be consistent with any change in the law. This

More information

Patent Litigation With Non-Practicing Entities: Strategies, Trends and

Patent Litigation With Non-Practicing Entities: Strategies, Trends and Patent Litigation With Non-Practicing Entities: Strategies, Trends and Techniques ALFRED R. FABRICANT 20 th Annual Fordham Intellectual Property Conference April 12, 2012 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP Leveling

More information

tjt Doc 2391 Filed 10/21/14 Entered 10/21/14 16:40:26 Page 1 of 5

tjt Doc 2391 Filed 10/21/14 Entered 10/21/14 16:40:26 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In re: ENERGY CONVERSION DEVICES, INC., et al. 1, Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No. 12-43166 (Jointly Administered) Judge Thomas

More information

The American Court System BASIC JUDICIAL REQUIREMENTS. Jurisdiction

The American Court System BASIC JUDICIAL REQUIREMENTS. Jurisdiction The American Court System BASIC JUDICIAL REQUIREMENTS Before a lawsuit can be brought before a court, certain requirements must first be met. These include: Jurisdicti on Venue Standing to Sue Jurisdiction

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED MAY 2 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ROYCE MATHEW, No. 15-56726 v. Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-07832-RGK-AGR

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 12-929 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ATLANTIC MARINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. J-CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Montanaro et al v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al Doc. 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION David Montanaro, Susan Montanaro,

More information

Jeffrey Podesta v. John Hanzel

Jeffrey Podesta v. John Hanzel 2017 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-27-2017 Jeffrey Podesta v. John Hanzel Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2017

More information

Wassenaar v. Towne Hotel 111 Wis. 2d 518, 331 N.W.2d 357 (1983)

Wassenaar v. Towne Hotel 111 Wis. 2d 518, 331 N.W.2d 357 (1983) Wassenaar v. Towne Hotel 111 Wis. 2d 518, 331 N.W.2d 357 (1983) This court granted the employee's petition for review limiting the issue on review to whether the clause in the employment contract stipulating

More information

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES, ) Respondent ) (ACM S32018) ) v. ) ) ORDER Airman First Class (E-3) ) BRIAN C. KATES, ) USAF, ) Petitioner ) Panel No. 3 The petitioner

More information

Case: 4:15-cv JAR Doc. #: 21 Filed: 08/05/16 Page: 1 of 13 PageID #: 302

Case: 4:15-cv JAR Doc. #: 21 Filed: 08/05/16 Page: 1 of 13 PageID #: 302 Case: 4:15-cv-01361-JAR Doc. #: 21 Filed: 08/05/16 Page: 1 of 13 PageID #: 302 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION TIMOTHY H. JONES, Plaintiff, v. No. 4:15-cv-01361-JAR

More information

Proposed Amendment in Section 28 of The Contract Act, 1872

Proposed Amendment in Section 28 of The Contract Act, 1872 Introduction Proposed Amendment in Section 28 of The Contract Act, 1872 Any undertaking between two individuals or groups of individuals results in a contract. From morning till evening, day in and day

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. Case No.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. Case No. Case 2:18-cv-12480 Document 1 Filed 08/06/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 1 DENTONS US LLP John R. Vales (JV4307) john.vales@dentons.com Kelly L. Lankford (KL9203) kelly.lankford@dentons.com 101 JFK Parkway Short

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Case 1:15-cv-00089-RDB Document 15 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND * A Body Corporate and Politic 400 Washington

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/ :58 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/03/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/ :58 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/03/2016 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2016 05:58 PM INDEX NO. 654871/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/03/2016 Case 1:16-cv-07734 Document 1 Filed 10/03/16 Page 1 of 7 Anne B. Sekel, Esq. FOLEY &

More information

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Subject Matter Jurisdiction Subject Matter Jurisdiction 1. The Concept of Subject Matter Jurisdiction a. Source and Limits of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction i. SMJ deals with institutional rather than individual concerns ii.

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE BARNES & NOBLE, INC., Petitioner. Miscellaneous Docket No. 162 On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the

More information

Wallach v Greenhouses Hotel, LLC NY Slip Op 32889(U) November 8, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2018 Judge: Arthur

Wallach v Greenhouses Hotel, LLC NY Slip Op 32889(U) November 8, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2018 Judge: Arthur Wallach v Greenhouses Hotel, LLC. 2018 NY Slip Op 32889(U) November 8, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Judge: Arthur F. Engoron Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY

More information

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Case 3:05-cv-00287-GPM-CJP Document 90 Filed 08/25/2005 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS RONALD ALSUP, ROBERT CREWS, and MAGNUM PROPERTIES, L.L.C.,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case: 18-131 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 06/13/2018 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit In re: INTEX RECREATION CORP., INTEX TRADING LTD., THE COLEMAN

More information

How widespread is its use in competition cases and in what type of disputes is it used? Euro-defence and/or claim for damages?

How widespread is its use in competition cases and in what type of disputes is it used? Euro-defence and/or claim for damages? IBA PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT - ARBITRATION (i) Role of arbitration in the enforcement of EC competition law Commercial contracts frequently refer disputes to be determined and settled by arbitration. This is

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-2231 MEMORANDUM RULING

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-2231 MEMORANDUM RULING Lopez v. Esparza et al Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION JORDAN LOPEZ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-2231 VERSUS JUDGE MINALDI RAFAEL ESPARAZA, ET AL MAGISTRATE

More information

PREVIEW PLEASE DO NOT COPY THIS DOCUMENT THANK YOU. LegalFormsForTexas.Com

PREVIEW PLEASE DO NOT COPY THIS DOCUMENT THANK YOU. LegalFormsForTexas.Com Information or instructions: Petition for breach of employment contract & wrongful termination 1. The form that follows this section commences litigation to recover moneys due under an employment contract.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-2012-L MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-2012-L MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Wilson v. Hibu Inc. Doc. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION TINA WILSON, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-2012-L HIBU INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION

More information

Case: 3:13-cv CVG-RM Document #: 9 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 1 of 9 DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST.

Case: 3:13-cv CVG-RM Document #: 9 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 1 of 9 DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. Case: 3:13-cv-00042-CVG-RM Document #: 9 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 1 of 9 DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN CARY CHAPIN, BARBARA DOUMA, EMILY BRATTON, JOHN BALDWIN, DEAN

More information

Civil procedure Professor Perritt Fall 2017 Model Answer

Civil procedure Professor Perritt Fall 2017 Model Answer Civil procedure Professor Perritt Fall 2017 Model Answer Question I A. To establish that the state court has personal jurisdiction over Einmalig, Buford must establish four things: (1) that the state of

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION. Case No. 3:16-cv-178-J-MCR ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION. Case No. 3:16-cv-178-J-MCR ORDER Case 3:16-cv-00178-MCR Document 61 Filed 10/24/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID 927 MARY R. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION vs. Case No. 3:16-cv-178-J-MCR

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LISA BOE, ET AL., v. Plaintiffs, CHRISTIAN WORLD ADOPTION, INC., ET AL., NO. 2:10 CV 00181 FCD CMK ORDER REQUIRING JOINT STATUS

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 Middleton-Cross Plains Area School District v. Fieldturf USA, Inc. Doc. 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MIDDLETON-CROSS PLAINS AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, v. FIELDTURF

More 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 Case 3:09-cv-00077-JMM Document 15 Filed 09/17/09 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LOUISE ALFANO and : No. 3:09cv77 SANDRA PRZYBYLSKI, : Plaintiffs

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,173 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. MOOSEY INC., an OKLAHOMA CORPORATION, Appellant,

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,173 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. MOOSEY INC., an OKLAHOMA CORPORATION, Appellant, NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,173 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS MOOSEY INC., an OKLAHOMA CORPORATION, Appellant, v. MOHAMMAD A. LONE, an INDIVIDUAL; and MOHAMMAD A. LONE, DBA

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Case 1:16-cv-00199-PLM-RSK ECF No. 40 filed 04/23/18 PageID.320 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ROSTA AG, ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 1:16-cv-199 -v- )

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Dugout, LLC, The Doc. 22 Civil Action No. 13-cv-00821-CMA-CBS JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC., v. Plaintiff, THE DUGOUT, LLC, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE McPhail v. LYFT, INC. Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION JENNIFER MCPHAIL A-14-CA-829-LY LYFT, INC. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES

More information