For fifty years, judges and legal scholars often have quoted and
|
|
- Edwina Bradley
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Reproduced by permission Colorado Bar Association, 37 The Colorado Lawyer 29 (April 2008). All rights reserved. THE CIVIL LITIGATOR Pleading Standards After Twombly: Surviving a Motion to Dismiss by Timothy Beyer, Amy Benson, and Mark Mathews The U.S. Supreme Court s decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly retired the widely recognized federal pleading standard that a complaint will not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim. Under the new standard, at least in federal court, a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to raise a right to relief beyond a speculative level. For fifty years, judges and legal scholars often have quoted and relied on the pronouncement in Conley v. Gibson 1 that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. 2 As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court s recent decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 3 this no set of facts pleading standard is no longer good law. In considering the proper standard for evaluating a motion to dismiss in an action alleging an antitrust claim under 1 of the Sherman Act, Justice Souter announced for the seven-totwo majority that Conley s famous observation has earned its retirement and defined its legacy as an incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard that is best forgotten. 4 Twombly marks a clear departure from prior liberal federal pleading standards and may represent one of the most significant pronouncements on pleading by the Supreme Court in the past fifty years. However, it is not entirely clear what pleading standard replaces the standard delineated in Conley. The Twombly Case The Twombly action was brought on behalf of a putative class of local phone and high-speed Internet consumers against the four then-existing Baby Bell telephone companies. The complaint alleged that the Baby Bells had violated 1 of the Sherman Act 5 by agreeing not to compete in one another s geographic territories and to exclude other upstart competitors from competing. 6 The complaint contained no factual allegations of an actual agreement beyond a conclusory statement that upon information and belief defendants have entered into a contract, combination or conspiracy.... It relied on allegations of parallel conduct, including an allegation that each of the Baby Bells had not entered the others markets even in geographically contiguous areas. A plaintiff seeking to prove a collusive agreement in violation of the Sherman Act cannot rely solely on parallel business conduct by the defendants. 7 Competitors sometimes act in parallel because they agreed to do so, but companies often act in parallel as the result of independent reaction to market forces. A plaintiff relying on parallel conduct therefore must offer evidence often referred to as plus factors that tends to rule out the possibility that the defendants were acting independently to defeat a motion for summary judgment. 8 At issue in Twombly was whether, to survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs had to plead plus factors to rule out the possibility that the defendants had acted independently.the district court dismissed the complaint for failing to state a claim on which relief could be granted, because the plaintiffs had not alleged any plus factors to suggest collusion. 9 The Second Circuit reversed, holding that plus factors need not be pled for an antitrust claim premised on parallel conduct to survive a motion to dismiss. Citing Conley, the Second Circuit held that a court would have to conclude that there is no set of facts that would permit a plaintiff to demonstrate that the particular Article Editors Donald Kelso, Denver, of Holme Roberts & Owen LLP (303) , donald.kelso@hro. com; Eric Bentley, Colorado Springs, of Holme Roberts & Owen LLP (719) , eric.bentley@hro.com About the Authors Timothy Beyer, Amy Benson, and Mark Mathews are shareholders at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, P.C. and members of the firm s corporate litigation practice group. Beyer is the chairman of the litigation group, and Mathews chairs the firm s natural resources practice group. The authors represented Qwest Communications International, Inc., one of the four defendants in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly. The Civil Litigator articles address issues of importance and interest to litigators and trial lawyers practicing in Colorado courts. The Civil Litigator is published six times a year. The Colorado Lawyer April 2008 Vol. 37, No. 4 29
2 parallelism asserted was the product of collusion rather than coincidence. 10 The U.S. Supreme Court Decision The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit and granted the motion to dismiss, holding that factual allegations of parallel conduct alone did not state a claim for relief under 1 of the Sherman Act. 11 In response to the plaintiffs argument that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) only a short and plain statement of the claim was required, Justice Souter noted that the Rule requires a showing, rather than a blanket assertion of entitlement to relief that relied merely on labels and conclusion. 12 To meet this standard, a 1 claim must be pled with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made, or at least to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal agreement. 13 The Court concluded that factual allegations of parallel conduct, coupled with only conclusory assertions of an illegal agreement, did not adequately state a claim for relief under 1 of the Sherman Act. 14 As Justice Souter summarized, [W]e do not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. 15 Perhaps the most far-reaching aspect of the Twombly decision concerns the Court s response to the plaintiffs argument that their complaint should be upheld under Conley. The Supreme Court retired the Conley pronouncement that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim, unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle him or her to relief. Noting that the Conley standard had received frequent criticism by lower courts, the Court stated that it was appropriately limited to the unremarkable proposition that once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with its allegations. 16 Twombly s Scope Twombly reaffirmed that the formulaic recitation of elements of a cause of action will not do. 17 Instead, the short and plain statement of fact required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) must possess enough heft to show that the pleader is entitled to relief, meaning that factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. 18 Less clear is the level of factual detail that will be required. Under Twombly, it is not enough to allege a conceivable agreement to state a 1 Sherman Act claim.the allegations must rise to the level of plausible. 19 The Court, however, did not provide detail as to what level of facts nudge [a] claim across the line from the [merely] conceivable to what is permissibly plausible. 20 The Supreme Court likewise did not specify whether the plausibility standard applied outside the antitrust context. In his dissent, Justice Stevens suggested that whether the new pleading standard will apply in all civil cases was a question that the future will answer. 21 That said, although the Twombly Court discussed the pleading standard in the context of antitrust litigation, the Court declared that the plausibility standard flowed directly from Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), which applies to all complaints in civil actions. Federal Application of Twombly Twombly already has been cited by several federal courts, and a number of federal circuits have applied the Twombly standard outside the antitrust context. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has applied the new plausibility standard under which a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face to cases outside the antitrust arena. 22 The Second Circuit observed that [s]ome of the language relating generally to Rule 8 pleading standards seems to be so integral to the rationale of the Court s parallel conduct holding as to constitute a necessary part of that holding, and therefore has decline[d] to read Twombly s flexible plausibility standard as limited to antitrust cases. 23 The Third, Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits also have applied the Twombly standard in nonantitrust cases. 24 State Application of Twombly Twombly s impact in state cases is less certain. 25 Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) is identical to its federal counterpart in requiring a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Accordingly, fifteen years ago, the Colorado Supreme Court adopted Conley s no set of facts standard, and since then has cited the standard on numerous occasions. 26 Colorado appellate courts repeatedly have acknowledged that when the Colorado and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are essentially identical, case law interpreting the federal rule is persuasive in analysis of the Colorado rule. 27 Because no Colorado state court decision has discussed or cited Twombly, it remains to be seen whether the 30 The Colorado Lawyer April 2008 Vol. 37, No. 4
3 Colorado Supreme Court will continue to adhere to the Conley no set of facts standard or will replace that standard with Twombly s plausibility standard. 28 Post-Twombly Pleading Under Twombly, a plaintiff proceeding under the federal rules can no longer argue that the complaint survives unless no set of facts could support the claim. With the retirement of the Conley standard, plaintiffs can no longer rely on conclusions in a complaint because some hypothetical set of facts might arguably justify them. Twombly s replacement for the Conley test, however, has not been fully delineated. The Second Circuit concluded that the Supreme Court intended to alter the regime of pure notice pleading that had prevailed since Conley was decided fifty years ago, but found that the nature and extent of that alteration was not clear. 29 The Tenth Circuit noted a similar lack of clarity. 30 Plausibility Standard The Supreme Court s per curiam opinion in Erickson v. Pardus, 31 issued just weeks after Twombly, adds to the uncertainty about the meaning and scope of the plausibility standard. In Erickson, the Court reversed a Tenth Circuit decision that upheld the dismissal of a prisoner s 1983 complaint for failing to state a claim on which relief could be granted. 32 The prisoner alleged he faced lifethreatening consequences as a result of the state s refusal to continue his treatment for Hepatitis C. Although the Tenth Circuit applied Conley s no set of facts standard, 33 it concluded that the prisoner s allegations failed to state a claim for relief because his complaint contained only conclusory allegations and failed to allege that the discontinuance of the treatment as opposed to the Hepatitis C itself would cause substantial harm to him. 34 The Supreme Court reversed. Referring to the Tenth Circuit s opinion as a stark departure from the liberal pleading standards set forth by Rule 8(2), 35 the Court rejected the Tenth Circuit s determination that the plaintiff s pleading of a cognizable independent harm was conclusory. 36 The Court stressed the liberal pleading requirements under Fed. R. Civ.P. 8(a)(2). 37 Additionally, the Court declared that [s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. 38 Although the Erickson Court cited Twombly twice once for the fair notice requirement and once for the requirement that the court accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint 39 the Court did not reference or apply Twombly s plausibility standard. Erickson may be read as a cautionary flag for applying pleading standards that are too stringent. 40 This call for caution is buttressed by the Supreme Court s express blessing in Twombly of the model form for pleading negligence, which alleges simply that a defendant struck a plaintiff with his car while the plaintiff was crossing a particular highway at a specified date and time. The Supreme Court in Twombly found these allegations provide the notice required to avoid a motion to dismiss. 41 In light of Twombly, the Second Circuit now requires a flexible plausibility standard, which obliges a pleader to amplify a claim 32 The Colorado Lawyer April 2008 Vol. 37, No. 4
4 with some factual allegations in those contexts where such amplification is needed to render the claim plausible. 42 The Tenth Circuit arguably requires more; there, a complaint now must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support of [its] claims. 43 At a minimum, Twombly requires greater scrutiny at the pleading stage. It strengthens the gate-keeping role of a court, and requires that something more than a mere possibility of entitlement to relief be pled. If, as it appears will happen, the plausibility standard applies to all civil cases, a complaint that fails to plead enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face will fail. Conclusion In Twombly, the U.S. Supreme Court retired the commonly applied federal pleading standard that a complaint can be dismissed only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his or her claim. In its place, the Court left a plausibility standard that requires at least for an antitrust complaint under 1 of the Sherman Act allegations plausibly suggesting, and not merely consistent with, an agreement to restrain trade.this standard already has been applied outside the antitrust arena. What remains unclear, however, is how far the bar has been raised. Perhaps, as the decision in Erickson may suggest, the bar has moved little for smaller and less complex disputes. In larger, more complex cases where the burden on the courts and litigants is high, courts now may take a more active gate-keeping role at the motion to dismiss stage. Therefore, practitioners with complex cases should consider including in their complaints more detailed factual allegations to support their claims. Notes 1. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957). 2. Id. at Bell Atl. Corp. v.twombly, 550 U.S., 127 S.Ct (2007). 4. Id. at, 127 S.Ct. at U.S.C The breakup of AT&T in 1984 created regional Bell operating companies known as Baby Bells with regulated monopolies for local telephone service in their designated geographic areas. Twombly, supra note 3 at, 127 S.Ct. at The 1996 Telecommunications Act sought to increase competition in the telephone market in part by ending the regional monopolies held by the Baby Bells. Central to the [new] scheme [was each (Baby Bell s)] obligation... to share its network with its competitors.... Id., quoting Verizon Commc ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 402 (2004). The complaint in Twombly alleged that the Baby Bells agreed not to compete in each other s territories and conspired to prevent other competitive upstarts from competing, in violation of 1 of the Sherman Act. Twombly, supra note 3 at, 127 S.Ct. at Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588 (1986). 8. Id. 9. Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 313 F.Supp.2d 174, (S.D.N.Y. 2003). 10. Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 425 F.3d 99, 114 (2d Cir. 2006). 11. Twombly, supra note 3 at, 127 S.Ct. at The Colorado Lawyer April 2008 Vol. 37, No. 4 33
5 12. Id. at, 127 S.Ct. at 1965 n Id. at, 127 S.Ct. at Id. 15. Id. at, 127 S.Ct. at Id. at, 127 S.Ct. at Id. at, 127 S.Ct. at Id. at, 127 S.Ct. at Id. at, 127 S.Ct. at Id. at, 127 S Ct. at Id. at, 127 S.Ct. at 1988 (Stevens, J., dissenting). 22. See, e.g.,ton Servs., Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 493 F.3d 1225, 1236 (10th Cir. July 23, 2007) (applying plausibility standard to complaint stating statutory claims under the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 276(a)); Alvarado v. KOB-TV, LLC, 493 F.3d 1210, 1215 (10th Cir. July 13, 2007) (applying plausibility standard to 1983 claim for violation of constitutional rights). 23. Iqbal v. Hasty, 2007 WL at *12 (2d Cir. 2007). See also ATSI Comm. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 2007 WL at *14 (2d Cir. 2007). 24. See Victaulic Co. v.tieman, 499 F.3d 227, 234 (3d Cir. 2007) (applying Twombly standard in covenant not to compete); Lindsay v. Yates, 498 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. Aug. 15, 2007) (discrimination claim); St. John s United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago, 502 F.3d 616, 625 (7th Cir. Sept. 13, 2007) (First Amendment and Religious Freedom Restoration Act claims); Jennings v. Auto Meter Products, Inc., 495 F.3d 466, 473 (7th Cir. July 25, 2007) (RICO claim); Financial Sec. Assur., Inc. v. Stephens, Inc., 500 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. Sept. 18, 2007) (Section 10(b) securities claim). 25. Relatively few state courts have discussed Twombly. Among those that have, courts in Arizona, Delaware, Nebraska, and the District of Columbia have interpreted Twombly as limiting their review in a motion to dismiss to those facts actually alleged in a complaint, rather than to unpled facts that could support a cause of action. See Desimone v. Barrows, 924 A.2d 908, 929 (Del.Ch. 2007); Cullen v. Coronado, 168 P.3d 917 (Ariz.Ct.App. 2007); Holmstedt v. York County Jail Supervisor, 739 N.W.2d 449 (Neb.Ct.App. 2007); Chamberlain v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp., 931 A.2d 1018 (D.C. 2007). Conversely, in Highmark W. Va., Inc. v. Jamie, 2007 W.Va. LEXIS 111 (Nov. 20, 2007), the West Virginia Supreme Court declined to consider whether Twombly fully replaced the prevailing Conley standard and instead reaffirmed the state s use of a no set of facts standard. A Massachusetts Superior Court held in Karlis v. Tradex Swiss AG, 2007 Mass.Super. LEXIS 331 (Sept. 7, 2007), that Twombly had no effect on Rule 12(b)(6) law or practice in Massachusetts. Id. at * In Dunlap v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, Inc., 892 P.2d 1286, 1291 (Colo. 1992), the Colorado Supreme Court cited Conley s no set of facts language in describing the standard by which a motion to dismiss for failing to state a claim should be evaluated.the language of Dunlap often has been repeated and applied by Colorado courts. E.g., Dorman v. Petrol Aspent, Inc., 914 P.2d 909, 911 (Colo. 1996) ( [a] complaint is not to be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff cannot prove facts in support of the claim that would entitle the plaintiff to relief ); Rosenthal v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 908 P.2d 1095, 1099 (Colo. 1995) ( [w]e view with disfavor a C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and uphold a trial court s grant of such a motion only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief ); Berenergy Corp. v. Zab, Inc., 94 P.3d 1232, 1237 (Colo.App. 2004) ( [a] trial court may not dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim unless it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim ). 27. See, e.g., Forbes v. Goldenhersh, 899 P.2d 246, 249 (Colo.App. 1994). 28. In Hemmann Mgmt. Servs. v. Mediacell, Inc., 2007 WL (Colo.App. Dec. 27, 2007), the Colorado Court of Appeals did not mention Twombly in reversing a trial court s dismissal of a complaint. Relying on state court precedent, the court held that the complaint should not be dismissed, because it adequately sets forth the transaction that is the subject of plaintiff s contract claims and provides defendant with sufficient notice of the claims asserted against it. Id. at * In Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 155 (2d Cir. June 14, 2007), the Second Circuit noted that the Twombly Court s explanation contains several, not entirely consistent, signals. 30. Alvarado, supra note 22 at 1215 n.2 ( [T]he Supreme Court was not clear [in Twombly] on the articulation of the proper standard for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.... ). 31. Erickson v. Pardus, U.S., 127 S.Ct (2007). 32. See Erickson v. Pardus, 198 Fed.Appx. 694 (10th Cir. 2006). 33. See id. at 696, quoting Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991) (quotation omitted). 34. See id. at Erickson, supra note 31 at Id. 37. Id., quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 38. Id. at 2200, quoting Twombly, supra note 3 at, 127 S.Ct. at 1964, quoting Conley, supra note 1 at See id. at In TON Servs. and Alvarado, the Tenth Circuit noted that the decision would have been the same under either the older no set of facts standard or the new plausibility standard. TON Servs., supra note 22 at 1236; Alvarado, supra note 22 at 1215 (emphasizing the decision would be the same under a no set of facts standard, a plausibility standard, or a standard requiring facts sufficient to raise a right to relief above a speculative level ). Substantive discussion of Erickson in light of Twombly has been limited in the Tenth Circuit, where the District Court for the District of Colorado has followed Alvarado in holding that courts should look to the specific allegations in the complaint to determine whether they plausibly support a legal claim for relief. Curtis v. Brown, 2007 WL at *2 (D.Colo. Sept. 4, 2007). See also Farrell v. Okla. Dep t of Corrections, 2007 WL at *1 n.1 (W.D.Okla. Oct. 4, 2007) (holding in light of Twombly and Erickson, the standard applied to dismissals is that courts now must look to the specific allegations in the complaint to determine whether they plausibly support a legal claim for relief ). 41. Twombly, supra note 3 at, 127 S.Ct. at 1970 n Iqbal, supra note 29 at The Ridge at Red Hawk, LLC v. Schneider, 2007 WL at *3 (10th Cir. 2007). 34 The Colorado Lawyer April 2008 Vol. 37, No. 4
Twombly: A Journey from the Conceivable to the Plausible
theantitrustsource www.antitrustsource.com June 2007 1 Twombly: A Journey from the Conceivable to the Plausible Manfred Gabriel T The Supreme Court s recent decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 1
More informationBELL ATLANTIC V. TWOMBLY: THE DAWN OF A NEW PLEADING STANDARD? Antoinette N. Morgan* Brian K. Telfair
BELL ATLANTIC V. TWOMBLY: THE DAWN OF A NEW PLEADING STANDARD? Antoinette N. Morgan* Brian K. Telfair The United States Supreme Court's decision in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly 1 may very well mark the end
More informationin thewake of Bell Atlantic
2 How Will Seventh Circuit Pleading Requirements and Dismissal Standards Change in thewake of Bell Atlantic By Joshua Yount 1 T his past May, in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007),
More informationIqbal And The Twombly Pleading Standard
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Iqbal And The Twombly Pleading Standard Law360,
More informationThe Implications Of Twombly And PeaceHealth
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com The Implications Of Twombly And PeaceHealth
More informationPleading Direct Patent Infringement Without Form 18
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Pleading Direct Patent Infringement Without Form 18
More informationCase 1:13-cv RHB Doc #14 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#88
Case 1:13-cv-01235-RHB Doc #14 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#88 TIFFANY STRAND, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, CORINTHIAN COLLEGES,
More informationCase 1:12-cv ABJ Document 14 Filed 06/19/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:12-cv-01369-ABJ Document 14 Filed 06/19/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DELONTE EMILIANO TRAZELL Plaintiff, vs. ROBERT G. WILMERS, et al. Defendants.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Burget v. Capital West Securities Inc Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA GRANT BURGET, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. CIV-09-1015-M CAPITAL WEST SECURITIES, INC.,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. v. CASE NO SAC
Orange v. Lyon County Detention Center Doc. 4 KYNDAL GRANT ORANGE, Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS v. CASE NO. 18-3141-SAC LYON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Defendant.
More informationCase 1:14-cv WYD-MEH Document 26 Filed 07/17/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:14-cv-00262-WYD-MEH Document 26 Filed 07/17/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6 Civil Action No. 14 cv 00262-WYD-MEH MALIBU MEDIA, L.L.C., v. Plaintiff, RICHARD SADOWSKI, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES
More informationCase: 1:14-cv Document #: 22 Filed: 11/09/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:284
Case: 1:14-cv-10230 Document #: 22 Filed: 11/09/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:284 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION REBA M. O PERE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. United Parcel Service, Inc. Doc. 57 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : ORDER
Case 117-cv-05214-RWS Document 24 Filed 09/26/18 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION VASHAUN JONES, Plaintiff, v. PIEDMONT PLUS FEDERAL
More informationCase 0:17-cv WPD Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/11/2017 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:17-cv-61266-WPD Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/11/2017 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA SILVIA LEONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
More informationRevolution or Minor Disruption Twombly and Iqbal Through the Rear View Mirror
Revolution or Minor Disruption Twombly and Iqbal Through the Rear View Mirror William Frank Carroll Cox Smith Matthews Incorporated 1201 Elm Street, Suite 3300 Dallas, Texas 75270 Board Certified, Civil
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENWOOD DIVISION
Wanning et al v. Duke Energy Carolinas LLC Doc. 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENWOOD DIVISION John F. Wanning and Margaret B. Wanning, C/A No. 8:13-839-TMC
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : ORDER
Case 217-cv-00282-RWS Document 40 Filed 09/26/18 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION VASHAUN JONES, Plaintiff, v. LANIER FEDERAL CREDIT
More informationPLEADING IN FEDERAL COURT AFTER ASHCROFT v. IQBAL by Paul Ferrer
PLEADING IN FEDERAL COURT AFTER ASHCROFT v. IQBAL by Paul Ferrer LEGAL RESEARCH, ANALYSIS, AND ADVOCACY FOR ATTORNEYS Founded in 1969, NLRG is the nation s oldest and largest provider of legal research
More informationCase: 1:15-cv Document #: 71 Filed: 09/06/16 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:298
Case: 1:15-cv-09050 Document #: 71 Filed: 09/06/16 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:298 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JOHN HOLLIMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case
More informationCan You Hear Me Now? Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and the Pleading Standards for Antitrust Conspiracy Claims
theantitrustsource www.antitrustsource.com October 2006 1 Can You Hear Me Now? Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and the Pleading Standards for Antitrust Conspiracy Claims Christopher B. Hockett and Todd Pickles
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Chieftain Royalty Company v. Marathon Oil Company Doc. 41 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA CHIEFTAIN ROYALTY COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-17-334-SPS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.
Case :-cv-0-l-nls Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0 0 JASON DAVID BODIE v. LYFT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, Defendants. Case No.: :-cv-0-l-nls ORDER GRANTING
More informationCase 3:13-cv L Document 109 Filed 08/21/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID 3052
Case 3:13-cv-02920-L Document 109 Filed 08/21/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID 3052 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION INFECTIOUS DISEASE DOCTORS, P.A., Plaintiff, v.
More informationPlaintiffs, 1:11-CV-1533 (MAD/CFH)
Kent et al v. State of New York et al Doc. 72 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SUSAN KENT as PRESIDENT of THE NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FEDERATION, AFL-CIO, NEW YORK STATE
More informationCase 1:15-cv KLM Document 34 Filed 09/16/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:15-cv-01927-KLM Document 34 Filed 09/16/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 12 Civil Action No. 15-cv-01927-KLM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO GINA M. KILPATRICK, individually
More informationDeconstructing Bell Atlantic v. Twombly
University of San Francisco From the SelectedWorks of Celine Mui October 19, 2009 Deconstructing Bell Atlantic v. Twombly Celine Mui, University of San Francisco Available at: https://works.bepress.com/celine_mui/1/
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No. 8:13-cv-2428-T-33TBM ORDER
!aaassseee 888:::111333- - -cccvvv- - -000222444222888- - -VVVMMM!- - -TTTBBBMMM DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt 555111 FFFiiillleeeddd 000222///111888///111444 PPPaaagggeee 111 ooofff 888 PPPaaagggeeeIIIDDD
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Ballas et al v. Chickashaw Nation Industries Inc et al Doc. 46 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA TOM G. BALLAS and ) RON C. PERKINS, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case
More informationHeightened Pleading Standards Apply to Avoidance Complaints
Heightened Pleading Standards Apply to Avoidance Complaints By Paul Rubin and John August Parties to preference and fraudulent transfer actions should pay careful attention to the decision in Angell, Trustee
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Case No. 12-cv HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ELCOMETER, INC., Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 12-cv-14628 HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN TQC-USA, INC., et al., Defendants. / ORDER DENYING
More informationCase 5:07-cv C Document 27 Filed 12/19/2007 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:07-cv-00514-C Document 27 Filed 12/19/2007 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA VELIE and VELIE, P.L.L.C., JONATHAN VELIE Plaintiff, vs. Case No.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Wallace v. DSG Missouri, LLC Doc. 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS JOSEPH WALLACE, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 15-cv-00923-JPG-SCW DSG MISSOURI, LLC, Defendant.
More informationCase: 1:10-cv Document #: 22 Filed: 01/25/11 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:316
Case: 1:10-cv-06467 Document #: 22 Filed: 01/25/11 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:316 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION DARNELL KEEL and MERRITT GENTRY, v. Plaintiff, VILLAGE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs,
Case :-cv-000-h-blm Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 0 DEBRA HOSLEY, et al., vs. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiffs, NATIONAL PYGMY GOAT ASSOCIATION; and DOES TO 0,
More informationCase 2:11-cv DS Document 28 Filed 02/29/12 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:11-cv-00539-DS Document 28 Filed 02/29/12 Page 1 of 2 Case 2:11-cv-00539-DS Document 28 Filed 02/29/12 Page 2 of 2 Case 2:11-cv-00539-DS Document 27 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES
More informationCase 3:10-cv L Document 22 Filed 08/19/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID 101 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:10-cv-00546-L Document 22 Filed 08/19/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID 101 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MICHAEL RIDDLE, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0546-L
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case No CIV-ROSENBAUM
Ramnarine v. CP RE Holdco 2009-1, LLC et al Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 12-61716-CIV-ROSENBAUM DAVID RAMNARINE, v. Plaintiff, CP RE HOLDCO 2009-1, LLC and
More informationCase: 1:12)cv)0000-)S/L1 Doc. 5: 64 Filed: 08=17=12 1 of 7 5: -10
Case: 1:12cv0000-S/L1 Doc. 5: 64 Filed: 08=17=12 Pa@e: 1 of 7 Pa@eBD 5: -10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION BRYAN PENNINGTON, on behalf of himself and all
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. HTC Corporation et al Doc. 83 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC, Plaintiff, v. HTC CORPORATION and HTC
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Duke-Roser v. Sisson, et al., Doc. 19 Civil Action No. 12-cv-02414-WYD-KMT KIMBERLY DUKE-ROSSER, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
More informationCastillo v. Roche Laboratories, Inc. Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-SEITZIO'SULLIVAN
Castillo v. Roche Laboratories, Inc. Doc. 19 WILLIAM JORGE CASTILLO, VS. Plaintiff, ROCHE LABORATORIES INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 10-20876-CIV-SEITZIO'SULLIVAN
More informationCase 2:08-mc DWA Document 131 Filed 02/11/2009 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:08-mc-00180-DWA Document 131 Filed 02/11/2009 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: FLAT GLASS ANTITRUST ) Civil Action No. 08-mc-180 LITIGATION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Safe Streets Alliance et al v. Alternative Holistic Healing, LLC et al Doc. 140 Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00349-REB-CBS SAFE STREETS ALLIANCE, PHILLIS WINDY HOPE REILLY, and MICHAEL P. REILLY, v. Plaintiffs,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE EIDOS COMMUNICATIONS, LLC and ) MESSAGE ROUTES, LLC, ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) v. ) Civ. No. 09-234-SLR ) SKYPE TECHNOLOGIES SA and ) SKYPE, INCORPORATED,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:09-cv-07710-PA-FFM Document 18 Filed 02/08/10 Page 1 of 5 Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Paul Songco Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No. Attorneys
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case 3:16-cv-00383-JPG-RJD Case 1:15-cv-01225-RC Document 22 21-1 Filed Filed 12/20/16 12/22/16 Page Page 1 of 11 1 of Page 11 ID #74 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
More informationCase: 1:18-cv Document #: 37 Filed: 10/30/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:435
Case: 1:18-cv-02069 Document #: 37 Filed: 10/30/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:435 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ALAINA HAMPTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 18 C 2069
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION. v. Case No: 2:16-cv-833-FtM-99CM OPINION AND ORDER
Smith v. One 2016 55' Prestige Yacht et al Doc. 22 CHERYL SMITH, d/b/a Reliable Marine Salvage & Towing, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION v. Case
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) This case arises out of the alleged infringement of a patent for an audio communication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA -WAY COMPUTING, INC., Plaintiff, vs. GRANDSTREAM NETWORKS, INC., Defendant. :-cv-0-rcj-pal ORDER This case arises out of the alleged infringement of a patent
More informationTHE DISTRICT COURT CASE
Supreme Court Sets the Bar High, Requiring Knowledge or Willful Blindness to Establish Induced Infringement of a Patent, But How Will District Courts Follow? Peter J. Stern & Kathleen Vermazen Radez On
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Payne v. Grant County Board of County Commissioners et al Doc. 38 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA SHARI PAYNE, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. CIV-14-362-M GRANT COUNTY,
More informationHOUSTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. TITLEWORKS OF SOUTHWE...
Page 1 of 6 HOUSTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. TITLEWORKS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., MIKHAIL TRAKHTENBERG, and WESTCOR LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. Case No. 2:15-cv-219-FtM-29DNF.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 1:15-cv-05617 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/21/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:68 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION THOMAS HENRY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v.
More informationPatent 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 informationHarold Wilson v. City of Philadelphia
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-1-2011 Harold Wilson v. City of Philadelphia Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-2246
More informationJay Lin v. Chase Card Services
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-10-2011 Jay Lin v. Chase Card Services Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-1612 Follow
More information2:12-cv DPH-MKM Doc # 10 Filed 04/30/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 99 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:12-cv-15205-DPH-MKM Doc # 10 Filed 04/30/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 99 MIQUEL ROSS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 12-15205 v. HONORABLE
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 9 Filed: 04/11/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:218
Case: 1:13-cv-01569 Document #: 9 Filed: 04/11/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:218 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PAUL DUFFY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. )
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:13-CV-678-MOC-DSC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:13-CV-678-MOC-DSC LEE S. JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) J.P. MORGAN CHASE NATIONAL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.: 4: 15-CV-0170-HLM ORDER
Case 4:15-cv-00170-HLM Document 28 Filed 12/02/15 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION MAURICE WALKER, on behalf of himself and others similarly
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
GEORGE HALL, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 15, 2013 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JEFF HUPP;
More informationFederal Court Dismisses Data Breach Class Action Brought Against J.P. Morgan Chase Based on Federal Preemption
Federal Court Dismisses Data Breach Class Action Brought Against J.P. Morgan Chase Based on Federal Preemption ALAN CHARLES RAUL, EDWARD McNICHOLAS, MICHAEL F. McENENEY, AND KARL F. KAUFMANN This article
More informationJones v. Mirza et al Doc. 89 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. v. Civ. No RGA
Jones v. Mirza et al Doc. 89 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MATTHEW JONES, Plaintiff, v. Civ. No. 15-1017-RGA DR. KHALID MIRZA, et ai., Defendants. Matthew Jones, Greenwood,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 6:10-cv-00414-GAP-DAB Document 102 Filed 01/23/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID 726 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. and NURDEEN MUSTAFA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Plaintiffs,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit DISC DISEASE SOLUTIONS INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. VGH SOLUTIONS, INC., DR-HO S, INC., HOI MING MICHAEL HO, Defendants-Appellees 2017-1483 Appeal
More informationAshcroft v. Iqbal: Taking Twombly a Step Further
JULY 2009, RELEASE TWO Ashcroft v. Iqbal: Taking Twombly a Step Further Caroline Mitchell & David Wallach Jones Day Ashcroft v. Iqbal: Taking Twombly a Step Further Caroline Mitchell & David Wallach 1
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. v. : Civil Action No. DKC MEMORANDUM OPINION
Diaz et al v. Corporate Cleaning Solutions, LLC et al Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ANAHI M. DIAZ, et al. : : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 15-2203 : CORPORATE CLEANING
More informationEvolving With Affirmative Defense Pleading Standard
Portfolio Media, Inc. 860 Broadway, 6 th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Evolving With Affirmative Defense Pleading
More informationCase 3:13-cv DRH-SCW Document 13 Filed 04/11/13 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #311
Case 3:13-cv-00207-DRH-SCW Document 13 Filed 04/11/13 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #311 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PRENDA LAW, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 13-cv-00207
More informationCase 1:09-cv JCC-IDD Document 32 Filed 09/28/2009 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Case 1:09-cv-00725-JCC-IDD Document 32 Filed 09/28/2009 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division KEITH & COURTNEY NAHIGIAN, ) ) Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 3:11-cv RBL Document 13 Filed 11/08/11 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA. Defendants.
Case :-cv-0-rbl Document Filed /0/ Page of HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON RUDOLPH B. ZAMORA JR., v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA Plaintiff, CITY OF BONNEY LAKE, BONNEY
More informationCase 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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION. Plaintiff, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION
Cummings v. Moore et al Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION BERTHA L. CUMMINGS, Plaintiff, v. Action No. 3:08 CV 579 EDDIE N. MOORE, JR., JANET DUGGER, RANDY
More informationCase 1:13-cv SOM-KSC Document 79 Filed 10/23/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 637 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
Case 1:13-cv-00645-SOM-KSC Document 79 Filed 10/23/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 637 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII MAURICE HOWARD, vs. Plaintiff, THE HERTZ CORPORATION, et
More informationCase 1:08-cv JEB Document 50 Filed 03/11/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cv-01289-JEB Document 50 Filed 03/11/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DICK ANTHONY HELLER, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 08-01289 (JEB v. DISTRICT
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. Nos & JAY J. LIN, Appellant
Case:10-1612 Document: 003110526514 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/10/2011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NOT PRECEDENTIAL Nos. 10-1612 & 10-2205 JAY J. LIN, v. Appellant CHASE CARD SERVICES;
More informationCase 0:14-cv KMM Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2015 Page 1 of 8
Case 0:14-cv-62567-KMM Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2015 Page 1 of 8 TRACY SANBORN and LOUIS LUCREZIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL ====== PRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:11-cv-04175-SJO -PLA UNITED Document STATES 11 DISTRICT Filed 08/10/11 COURT Page 1 of Priority 5 Page ID #:103 Send Enter Closed JS-5/JS-6 Scan Only TITLE: James McFadden et. al. v. National Title
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. Plaintiff, OPINION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY JOEVANNIE SOLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No: 18-10255 (SDW) (SCM) v. Plaintiff,
More information3:14-cv MGL Date Filed 10/23/14 Entry Number 24 Page 1 of 5
3:14-cv-01982-MGL Date Filed 10/23/14 Entry Number 24 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Melinda K. Lindler, Plaintiff, vs. Civil Action
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS. August Term, (Submitted: May 20, 2009 Decided: June 11, 2009) Docket No pr NEIL JOHNSON,
07-2213-pr Johnson v. Rowley UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2008 (Submitted: May 20, 2009 Decided: June 11, 2009) B e f o r e: Docket No. 07-2213-pr NEIL JOHNSON, v.
More informationCase Doc 28 Filed 04/08/16 EOD 04/08/16 16:05:16 Pg 1 of 10 SO ORDERED: April 8, James M. Carr United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 15-50150 Doc 28 Filed 04/08/16 EOD 04/08/16 16:05:16 Pg 1 of 10 SO ORDERED: April 8, 2016. James M. Carr United States Bankruptcy Judge UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) In re RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ) ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) ) MDL Docket No. 1869 ) Misc. No. 07-489 (PLF) This document relates to: ) ) DIRECT
More informationWhither Price Squeeze Antitrust?
JANUARY 2008, RELEASE ONE Whither Price Squeeze Antitrust? Jonathan M. Jacobson and Valentina Rucker Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Whither Price Squeeze Antitrust? Jonathan M. Jacobson and Valentina
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PATROSKI v. RIDGE et al Doc. 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SUSAN PATROSKI, Plaintiff, 2: 11-cv-1065 v. PRESSLEY RIDGE, PRESSLEY RIDGE FOUNDATION, and B.
More informationCase 3:18-cv BRM-DEA Document 26 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 3:18-cv-01544-BRM-DEA Document 26 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 178 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : THOMAS R. ROGERS and : ASSOCIATION OF NEW
More informationCase 1:17-cv RM-GPG Document 83 Filed 03/30/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:17-cv-02512-RM-GPG Document 83 Filed 03/30/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-02512-RM-GPG CSMN INVESTMENTS,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 7, 2007 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court RODOLFO RIVERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRAVIS
More informationCase: 1:16-cv Document #: 21 Filed: 03/27/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:84
Case: 1:16-cv-04522 Document #: 21 Filed: 03/27/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:84 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LISA SKINNER, Plaintiff, v. Case No.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Medix Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Dumrauf Doc. 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MEDIX STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 17 C 6648 v. ) ) Judge
More informationCase 0:14-cv WPD Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2014 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:14-cv-60975-WPD Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2014 Page 1 of 8 WENDY GRAVE and JOSEPH GRAVE, vs. Plaintiffs, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division KAREN FELD ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 2008 CA 002002 B ) v. ) Judge Leibovitz ) INGER SHEINBAUM ) Calendar 11 Defendant. ) ) ORDER This matter is
More informationCase 4:16-cv Document 27 Filed in TXSD on 06/06/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Case 4:16-cv-03577 Document 27 Filed in TXSD on 06/06/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Shockley v. Stericycle, Inc. Doc. 39 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION CHRISTOPHER SHOCKLEY, v. Plaintiff, STERICYCLE, INC.; ROBERT RIZZO; VICKI KRATOHWIL; and
More informationAntitrust and Intellectual Property: Recent Developments in the Pharmaceuticals Sector
September 2009 (Release 2) Antitrust and Intellectual Property: Recent Developments in the Pharmaceuticals Sector Aidan Synnott & William Michael Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP www.competitionpolicyinternational.com
More informationJohnson v. State of South Dakota et al Doc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION INTRODUCTION
Johnson v. State of South Dakota et al Doc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA FILED MAY 1 0 2017 CLERK SOUTHERN DIVISION LESLIE JOHNSON, 4:17-CV-04026-LLP Plaintiff, vs. STATE OF
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION DORIS LOTT, Plaintiff, v. No. 15-00439-CV-W-DW LVNV FUNDING LLC, et al., Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is Defendants
More informationIN 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 informationCase: 1:17-cv Document #: 43 Filed: 07/02/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:<pageid>
Case: 1:17-cv-05779 Document #: 43 Filed: 07/02/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MCGARRY & MCGARRY LLP, ) ) Plaintiff,
More information