Case 1:13-cv EGB Document 10 Filed 05/29/13 Page 1 of 15. No C (Judge Bruggink) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
|
|
- Amberlynn Hodges
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 1:13-cv EGB Document 10 Filed 05/29/13 Page 1 of 15 No C (Judge Bruggink) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SEQUOIA PACIFIC SOLAR I, LLC, and EIGER LEASE CO, LLC Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. DEFENDANT S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT STUART F. DELERY Acting Assistant Attorney General JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director BRYANT G. SNEE Deputy Director KENNETH M. DINTZER Assistant Director Civil Division Commercial Litigation Branch United States Department of Justice P.O. Box 480 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C Tel.: (202) KDintzer@CIV.USDOJ.GOV May 29, 2013 Attorneys for Defendant
2 Case 1:13-cv EGB Document 10 Filed 05/29/13 Page 2 of 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS ISSUE PRESENTED...1 INTRODUCTION...2 STATEMENT OF FACTS...2 ARGUMENT...3 I. This Court Should Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction...3 A. Standard Of Review...3 B. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Plaintiffs Complaint No APA Review In This Court Plaintiffs Allege That Treasury s Administration Of The Section 1603 Program Violated The Agency s Statutory Mandate And Authority...5 a. Allegations That Treasury Exceeded its Statutory Authority Fall Beyond This Court s Jurisdiction...5 b. Allegations That Treasury s Guidance Conflicts With The Agency s Statutory Authority Are Beyond This Court s Jurisdiction...8 c. Allegations Regarding Nonplaintiff Injuries Fall Beyond This Court s Jurisdiction This Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Consider Pending Applications...10 CONCLUSION...11
3 Case 1:13-cv EGB Document 10 Filed 05/29/13 Page 3 of 15 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Alder Terrace, Inc. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1998)... 3 Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988)... 6 Carroll v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 82 (2005)... 6, 7 Century Exploration New Orleans, LLC v. United States, 2013 WL (Fed. Cl.)... 6 Chambers v. United States, 417 F.3d 1218 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Crocker v. United States, 125 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1997)... 4 DGR Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 690 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Lawrence v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 550 (2006)... 6 Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 416 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2005)... 4 M. Snower & Co. v. United States, 140 F.2d 367 (7th Cir. 1944)... 2 Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2003)... 9 Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) Patton v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 768 (2005)... 4 Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746 (Fed. Cir. 1988)... 3, 4
4 Case 1:13-cv EGB Document 10 Filed 05/29/13 Page 4 of 15 Roth v. United States, 378 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)... 4 Scarseth v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 458 (2002) Schweiger Const. Co., Inc. v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 188 (2001) Suburban Mortg. Assocs., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 480 F.3d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2007)... 4, 8 U.S. Ass'n of Imps. of Textiles & Apparel v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 413 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005) U.S. Home Corp. v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 401 (2010)... 4 United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983)... 6 Statutes 28 U.S.C U.S.C. 1491(a)(1) (2006) U.S.C U.S.C U.S.C (1994)... 4, 6 American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of
5 Case 1:13-cv EGB Document 10 Filed 05/29/13 Page 5 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SEQUOIA PACIFIC SOLAR I, LLC, ) and EIGER LEASE CO, LLC ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No C ) (Judge Bruggink) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) DEFENDANT S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), the United States, defendant, respectfully requests that the Court dismiss plaintiffs complaint in its entirety because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs claims. In support of our motion, we rely upon the complaint and the following memorandum of law. ISSUE PRESENTED 1. The Court of Federal Claims does not have the general, Federal question jurisdiction necessary to review an agency s actions and decisions. Plaintiffs allege that the United States Department of the Treasury (Treasury) has improperly administered Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 (ARRTA), thereby violating the agency s statutory mandate and exceeding the agency s statutory authority. Because the plaintiffs ask the Court to review Treasury s administration of a Federal program, the Court should dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
6 Case 1:13-cv EGB Document 10 Filed 05/29/13 Page 6 of 15 INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs, Sequoia Pacific Solar I, LLC, and Eiger Lease Co, LLC, sue the United States pursuant to Section 1603 of ARRTA, a program that Congress designed to subsidize certain energy projects. Plaintiffs allege that Treasury violated its statutory mandate, exceeded its statutory authority, and issued guidance inconsistent with the ARRTA. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for themselves, but also allege injuries to nonparties and anticipate future injuries arising from applications still pending before the agency. The complaint s extensive allegations are irrelevant to a claim for increased payments under Section 1603; indeed, the majority of the complaint attacks Treasury s administration of ARRTA. Taken as a whole, plaintiffs complaint asks this Court to review an agency s administration of a Federal program. The Court should dismiss the complaint because the review being sought exceeds this Court s jurisdiction. Plaintiffs allege the following facts: 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS Sequoia Pacific and Eiger are companies that finance, develop, own, and lease solar energy projects. Compl. at Plaintiffs submitted applications to Treasury pursuant to Section 1603 of ARRTA. Id. at Under Section 1603, the Government reimbursed a portion of the expense of the designated energy projects. Id. at Sequoia Pacific submitted Section 1603 applications for 115 residential and 31 commercial solar energy projects. Id. at 53. In each application, Sequoia asserted a cost basis associated with the project s purchase price, and confirmed these cost bases by appraisals. 1 We reserve the right to contest each factual allegation in the complaint, should the Court deny our motion. E.g., M. Snower & Co. v. United States, 140 F.2d 367, 370 (7th Cir. 1944). 2
7 Case 1:13-cv EGB Document 10 Filed 05/29/13 Page 7 of 15 Id. Collectively, Treasury paid Sequoia Pacific $6,079,167 less than Sequoia Pacific claimed in its applications. Id. at 53. Regarding these applications, Treasury has notified Sequoia Pacific that the agency s decisions constituted final agency action. Id. at 55. Eiger submitted Section 1603 applications for 2036 residential solar energy projects. Id. at 54. In each application, Eiger asserted a cost basis associated with the project s purchase price, and confirmed these cost bases by appraisals. Id. Collectively, Treasury paid Eiger $1,995,241 less than Eiger claimed in its applications. Id. at 54. Regarding these applications, Treasury has notified Eiger that the agency s decisions constituted final agency action. Id. at 55. Sequoia Pacific and Eiger allege that they received some Section 1603 payments later than 60 days after they submitted their applications. Id. at 48. Both plaintiffs have additional, pending Section 1603 applications. Id. at 56. ARGUMENT I. This Court Should Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Because the complaint asks the Court to review Treasury s administration of the Section 1603 program, Comp. at 37, the Court should dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. RCFC 12(b)(1). A. Standard Of Review Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction, Alder Terrace, Inc. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and must do so by a preponderance of the evidence. See Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In resolving a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, this Court presumes all undisputed, factual allegations to be true and applies all reasonable inferences to 3
8 Case 1:13-cv EGB Document 10 Filed 05/29/13 Page 8 of 15 favor the plaintiffs. Reynolds, 846 F.2d at 747. The relevant issue in a motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) "is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." U.S. Home Corp. v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 401, 406 (2010) (quoting Patton v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 768, 773 (2005)). B. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Plaintiffs Complaint The Court should conclude that it does not have jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs claims, as they seek Administrative Procedures Act ("APA")-like review of Treasury s administration of the Section 1603 program. See 5 U.S.C (1994) No APA Review In This Court It is routinely acknowledged that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review agency decisions or actions. See Suburban Mortg. Assocs., Inc. v. U.S. Dep t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 480 F.3d 1116, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Of course, no APA review is available in the Court of Federal Claims. Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 416 F.3d 1356, 1370 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). Specifically, this Court lacks the general federal question jurisdiction of the district courts, which would allow it to review the agency s actions and to grant relief pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act[.] Crocker v. United States, 125 F.3d 1475, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Moreover, the Court of Federal Claims does not possess general equity jurisdiction where no independent basis for jurisdiction exists. Roth v. United States, 378 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 2 We do not concede that plaintiffs have properly pled an APA claim, or any other claim, upon which relief can be granted, and we reserve our right to challenge any such claims, here or in any other forums. 4
9 Case 1:13-cv EGB Document 10 Filed 05/29/13 Page 9 of Plaintiffs Allege That Treasury s Administration Of The Section 1603 Program Violated The Agency s Statutory Mandate And Authority Congress established the Section 1603 program to provide payments for renewable energy projects. Compl. at 2. Plaintiffs contend, however, that Treasury has improperly administered the program. Compl. at 3-5, Plaintiffs first (and only) count asserts Violations of Section 1603, violations of Treasury s statutory mandate, and violations of the agency s statutory authority. Compl. at Claim for Relief. Because the Court does not have jurisdiction to review Treasury s administration of the Section 1603 program, the Court should dismiss the complaint under RCOFC 12(b)(1). A review of the plaintiffs allegations demonstrates that they ask the Court, improperly, to review Treasury s administration of the Section 1603 program. a. Allegations That Treasury Exceeded Its Statutory Authority Fall Beyond This Court s Jurisdiction First, plaintiffs allege that Treasury s administration of the Section 1603 program violates the agency s statutory mandate: Compl. at 4 (emphasis added). In Section 1603, Congress did not create a new administrative program. Congress did not set forth new criteria for the receipt of payments. Congress did not authorize rulemaking. Instead, Congress mandated that Treasury make payments -promptly -based on well-known tax concepts that applied to ITCs under Internal Revenue Code Section 48. Treasury did not apply those rules. Treasury instead established its own, different rules (called "Guidance") for determining the amount the United States Government would pay for Section 1603 cash grants. Treasury had no authority to promulgate or to enforce those rules, which in any event were contrary to the plain language of Section An allegation that an agency has exceeded its statutory mandate in administering that agency s programs falls beyond the scope of this Court s review authority. To the extent this 5
10 Case 1:13-cv EGB Document 10 Filed 05/29/13 Page 10 of 15 claim seeks judicial review of an agency action... it is not within this Court's jurisdiction. This court has no general federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. 1331, nor the right generally to review final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C Lawrence v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 550, 554 (2006) (quoting Carroll v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 82, 86 (2005)). To the extent a plaintiff seeks to challenge the reasonableness or substantive validity of the Government's actions, the party may only pursue the case in the district courts, not in the Court of Federal Claims. See Century Exploration New Orleans, LLC v. United States, 2013 WL , 22 (Fed. Cl.) (citing Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 891 n.16 (1988)). Of course, under the Tucker Act, if a money mandating statute exists, the Court may properly determine if a plaintiff is entitled to a Government payment that has not been forthcoming. 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1) (2006); United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983). In such a case, the Court s determination would turn on a plaintiff s eligibility for the payment sought. Absent express, statutory authorization, however, the Court does not have jurisdiction to review whether a Federal agency has exceeded its authority. Sequoia Pacific and Eiger ask the Court to review whether Treasury had authority to promulgate or to enforce rules, which were, allegedly, contrary to the plain language of Section Compl. at 4. The Court should dismiss such a request for lack of jurisdiction, because no express statutory grant of jurisdiction exists. The plaintiffs allegations reflect their confusion as to the Court s jurisdictional limits. Rather than assert a claim for compensation under Section 1603, the complaint challenges Treasury s administration of the entire Section 1603 program: 36. Consistent with Section 1603 and established practice, solar energy developers such as SolarCity and sophisticated investors, assisted by 6
11 Case 1:13-cv EGB Document 10 Filed 05/29/13 Page 11 of 15 Compl. at pages skilled advisors, engaged in carefully negotiated transactions, resulting in agreements for the sale of specific solar energy assets as to which Section 1603 applications were submitted. Where applicable, those applications recited the purchase price that the parties had negotiated, and were further supported by an independent appraisal, prepared by an expert, certified appraiser, which applied various valuation techniques for assessing the fair market value of the solar energy facility. 37 Instead of administering the Section 1603 program as Congress intended, Treasury improperly changed the rules, reduced grant payments, and undermined the economic assumptions under which industry participants obtained financing and installed renewable energy facilities. 38 Administration of the Section 1603 program was delegated to Treasury's Office of the Fiscal Assistant Secretary. That Office has no expertise or experience in making proper cost basis determinations, and upon information and belief, had not previously been made responsible for administering any program comparable to the Section 1603 cash grant program. Rather, according to its website description, that Office "helps formulate policy systems for the collection, disbursement, management and security of public monies in the United States and abroad, and related government-wide accounting and reporting for those funds." See Office-of-Fiscal-Service.aspx. Notably, these paragraphs do not mention the plaintiffs or the alleged harm. Certainly, the allegations are not tied to any pleadings that would be necessary under a money-mandating statute. Instead, plaintiffs assertions address Treasury s alleged errors in administering the ARRTA program. The APA authorizes suit by a party who is adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute[.] 5 U.S.C Plaintiffs contend that Treasury abused its discretion in administering the Section 1603 program; this APA-like claim falls outside the court's jurisdiction. See Carroll v. United Sates, 67 Fed. Cl. 82, 86 (2005). 7
12 Case 1:13-cv EGB Document 10 Filed 05/29/13 Page 12 of 15 b. Allegations That Treasury s Guidance Conflicts With The Agency s Statutory Authority Are Beyond This Court s Jurisdiction The complaint also challenges Treasury s general authority to administer the program by providing guidance regarding cost-basis determinations. The complaint alleges: Compl. at page Section 1603 did not grant Treasury authority to promulgate rules or regulations related to the administration of the cash grant program, and certainly not rules or regulations for determining "cost basis," because Congress dictated that ITC definitions would govern. Treasury nonetheless did issue such rules and regulations, most problematically in the form of so-called "guidance" for the determination of cost basis: "Evaluating Cost Basis for Solar Photovoltaic Property" ("Cost Basis Evaluation Process Guidance") available at tiatives/ recovery/documents!n%20evaluating_cost_basis_for_solar _PV_Properties%20f inal.pdf. 40. Treasury's "Cost Basis Evaluation Process Guidance" is not consistent with the ITC program that it is supposed to mimic. Among other defects, all of which resulted in lower cash grants than those to which applicants were entitled, and which undermined the legitimate expectations upon which financing for solar energy facilities had been obtained: Thus, plaintiffs argue that Treasury issued guidance that was both unauthorized and inconsistent with Section Again, these paragraphs do not discuss the plaintiffs or their interactions with Treasury; instead, Sequoia Pacific and Eiger contend that Treasury s administration of this ARRTA program has affected all applicants. Indeed, plaintiffs argue that Treasury s actions have undermined the entire program: This uncertainty surrounding the cash grant program made it less likely that entities would be willing to invest in solar energy projects, the direct opposite of what Congress intended. Compl. at 45. Allegations such as these are not within this Court s authority to review. See Suburban Mortg. Assocs., 480 F.3d at Certainly, this Court does not have the authority to invalidate an executive branch agency s policies. See, e.g., DGR Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 690 F.3d 8
13 Case 1:13-cv EGB Document 10 Filed 05/29/13 Page 13 of , 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2012)(addressing challenges to an agency s regulations). This Court, moreover, does not have jurisdiction to consider let alone resolve plaintiffs challenges to Treasury s authority to administer the Section 1603 program. See also Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (en banc) (the Court of Federal Claims lacks APA jurisdiction. ). c. Allegations Regarding Nonplaintiff Injuries Fall Beyond This Court s Jurisdiction Plaintiffs alleged injuries to nonparties also are beyond this Court s jurisdiction. Plaintiffs contend that Treasury s approach to ARRTA resulted in program payments arriving after the statute s 60-day deadline. Compl. at 48. Plaintiffs, however, do not allege any specific injury to themselves from this delay as would be expected under a properly-pled claim for compensation. Instead, Sequoia Pacific and Eiger describe only injuries to a third party: The effect of such later payments can be severe for any company, and were particularly severe for SolarCity. Indeed, over time, limited liability companies in which SolarCity was an investor were forced to apply for smaller grants than they were entitled, because the negative impact of delayed payments was simply too great to bear. Compl. at 49 (emphasis added). The complaint describes SolarCity as a Non-party. Compl. at 8. Plaintiffs assert no jurisdictional basis for this Court to consider injuries allegedly sustained by nonparties. Moreover, plaintiffs reference to these alleged injuries further demonstrates that the complaint attacks Treasury s program administration, rather than articulating a claim under Section Accordingly, the Court should dismiss plaintiffs complaint for want of jurisdiction. 9
14 Case 1:13-cv EGB Document 10 Filed 05/29/13 Page 14 of This Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Consider Pending Applications Even when the complaint refers to plaintiffs applications, the allegations are not limited to claims before this Court. Plaintiffs assert, Both Sequoia Pacific and Eiger have still more applications that are pending before Treasury. If Treasury reduces the bases for Plaintiffs' remaining projects in the same way that it has past projects, Sequoia Pacific and Eiger will suffer millions of dollars in additional damages. Compl. at 56. No statute or rule authorizes this Court to review Treasury s actions under the Section 1603 program but even if jurisdiction existed, it would be limited to final agency action regarding these referenced claims. See, e.g., Chambers v. United States, 417 F.3d 1218, 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (The Court of Federal Claims acquires jurisdiction over claims for military disability retirement only after an appropriate board has evaluated the service member's entitlement); Scarseth v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 458, (2002) (claim not ripe until considered by MEB, PEB, or Army Board for Correction of Military Records). Even when the APA permits review of agency actions the agency action must be final. 5 U.S.C. 704; Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, (2004); U.S. Ass'n of Imps. of Textiles & Apparel v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 413 F.3d 1344, (Fed. Cir. 2005). Plaintiffs allegations regarding their still-pending applications further demonstrate that the complaint s objective is not to seek unpaid monies under the program, but to have this Court review Treasury s administration of the program in its entirety. Such a review much like a review of pending agency actions is beyond this Court s jurisdiction. The allegations of a complaint must be read as a whole. See Schweiger Const. Co., Inc. v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 188, 203 (2001). Here, the sum of plaintiffs complaint is unmistakable plaintiffs ask the Court to review Treasury s management of the Section
15 Case 1:13-cv EGB Document 10 Filed 05/29/13 Page 15 of 15 program. Plaintiffs request for damages is a small tail appended to a very large dog. Because the requested review is beyond this Court s jurisdiction, the Court should dismiss the complaint. CONCLUSION Because the complaint asks the Court to determine whether Treasury s administration of the Section 1603 program violated the agency s statutory mandate, the Court does not have jurisdiction and the complaint should be dismissed. 3 Respectfully submitted, STUART F. DELERY Acting Assistant Attorney General JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director s/ Bryant G. Snee BRYANT G. SNEE Deputy Director s/ Kenneth M. Dintzer KENNETH M. DINTZER Assistant Director Civil Division Commercial Litigation Branch United States Department of Justice P.O. Box 480 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C Tel.: (202) KDintzer@CIV.USDOJ.GOV May 29, 2013 Attorneys for Defendant 3 The United States requests that it be relieved of the obligation to engage in case management activities, such as early meeting of counsel and preparation of a Joint Pretrial Scheduling Report, as required by the RCFC, pending resolution of this motion. In the event the Court denies this motion, the United States requests an enlargement of 30 days from the date of the order denying the motion to respond to the complaint and commence case management activities. 11
Case 1:13-cv EGB Document 13 Filed 08/12/13 Page 1 of 18. No C (Senior Judge Bruggink) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Case 1:13-cv-00139-EGB Document 13 Filed 08/12/13 Page 1 of 18 No. 13-139C (Senior Judge Bruggink) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SEQUOIA PACIFIC SOLAR I, LLC, and EIGER LEASE CO, LLC, Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 1:13-cv EGB Document 120 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Case 1:13-cv-00139-EGB Document 120 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SEQUOIA PACIFIC SOLAR I, LLC, ) and EIGER LEASE CO, LLC, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 13-139-C
More informationNo C (Judge Lettow) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS BID PROTEST. CASTLE-ROSE, INC., Plaintiff, THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.
Case 1:11-cv-00163-CFL Document 22 Filed 05/11/11 Page 1 of 18 PROTECTED INFORMATION TO BE DISCLOSED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER No. 11-163C (Judge Lettow)
More informationCase 1:10-cv CFL Document 41 Filed 09/27/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Case 1:10-cv-00733-CFL Document 41 Filed 09/27/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ) AEY, INC., ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 10-733 C ) (Judge Lettow) UNITED STATES, ) Defendant. ) ) DEFENDANT
More informationIn the United States Court of Federal Claims
TALLACUS v. USA Doc. 28 In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 10-311C (Filed June 30, 2011) LARRY D. TALLACUS, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. Contracts; pendency of claims in other
More informationIn the United States Court of Federal Claims No C (Filed: August 29, 2014)
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 14-20C (Filed: August 29, 2014) GUARDIAN ANGELS MEDICAL SERVICE DOGS, INC., Contracts Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. Plaintiff, 7104 (b); Government Claim; Failure
More informationCase 1:15-cv NBF Document 16 Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Case 1:15-cv-00342-NBF Document 16 Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS THE INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. No. 15-342L
More informationMENDEZ v. USA Doc. 12 RI AL. No C. (Filed: September 20, 2016) (NOT TO BE PUBLISHED) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
MENDEZ v. USA Doc. 12 RI AL 3Jn tbe Wniteb セエ エ ウ @ (!Court of jf eberal (!Claims No. 16-441C (Filed: September 20, 2016 (NOT TO BE PUBLISHED ********************************** LAWRENCE MENDEZ, JR., Plaintiff,
More informationCase 1:13-cv NBF Document 21 Filed 05/02/14 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Case 1:13-cv-00874-NBF Document 21 Filed 05/02/14 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ) WINNEMUCCA INDIAN COLONY, and ) WILLIS EVANS, Chairman, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) No. 13-874 L
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case:-cv-0-MEJ Document Filed0// Page of 0 CITY OF OAKLAND, v. Northern District of California Plaintiff, ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General of the United States; MELINDA HAAG, U.S. Attorney for the Northern
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 informationCase 1:10-cv CCM Document 18 Filed 05/10/11 Page 1 of 24. No C (Judge Christine O.C. Miller) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Case 1:10-cv-00778-CCM Document 18 Filed 05/10/11 Page 1 of 24 No. 10-778C (Judge Christine O.C. Miller) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS RICHARD COLLINS, individually and on behalf of a class
More informationCase 2:18-cv KJD-CWH Document 7 Filed 12/26/18 Page 1 of 7
Case :-cv-0-kjd-cwh Document Filed // Page of 0 MICHAEL R. BROOKS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 HUNTER S. DAVIDSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 KOLESAR & LEATHAM 00 South Rampart Boulevard, Suite 00 Las Vegas, Nevada
More informationCase 3:11-cv DPJ -FKB Document 26 Filed 01/05/12 Page 1 of 10
Case 3:11-cv-00332-DPJ -FKB Document 26 Filed 01/05/12 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI JACKSON DIVISION AUGUSTUS P. SORIANO PLAINTIFF V. CIVIL
More informationCase: 1:10-cv Document #: 47 Filed: 03/07/11 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:580
Case: 1:10-cv-03361 Document #: 47 Filed: 03/07/11 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:580 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES of AMERICA ex rel. LINDA NICHOLSON,
More informationIn the United States Court of Federal Claims
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 15-872 T (Filed April 11, 2016 MINDY P. NORMAN, v. Plaintiff, THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Bank Secrecy Act; Subject Matter Jurisdiction; 28 U.S.C. 1355.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-0-BEN-BLM Document Filed 0//0 Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DANIEL TARTAKOVSKY, MOHAMMAD HASHIM NASEEM, ZAHRA JAMSHIDI, MEHDI HORMOZAN, vs. Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 1:09-cv ABJ Document 24-1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ) Civil Action No.
Case 1:09-cv-01985-ABJ Document 24-1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. Michael Lindley, Plaintiff, vs. THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION
Case 3:15-cv-00162 Document 132 Filed in TXSD on 08/22/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
More informationIn the United States Court of Federal Claims
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 13-116C (Filed under seal February 22, 2013) (Reissued February 27, 2013) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * METTERS INDUSTRIES, INC.,
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 informationDIVISION ONE. ARIZONA REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE SHELLEY MAGNESS and COLORADO STATE BANK & TRUST COMPANY, N.A., Co-Trustees of The Shelley Magness Trust UDA 6/25/2000, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. ARIZONA REGISTRAR
More informationCase 1:12-cv CFL Document 49 Filed 04/22/13 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Case 1:12-cv-00326-CFL Document 49 Filed 04/22/13 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS COUNCIL FOR TRIBAL ) EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 12-326C ) (Judge Charles
More informationCase 1:16-cv JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:16-cv-02113-JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AARP, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Case No.
More informationIn the United States Court of Federal Claims
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 14-84C (Filed: November 19, 2014 FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, et al. v. Plaintiffs, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Tucker Act;
More informationCase 2:10-cv RLH -PAL Document 29 Filed 12/02/10 Page 1 of 8
Case :0-cv-0-RLH -PAL Document Filed /0/0 Page of 0 SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 shawn@manganolaw.com SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. 0 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 0 Las Vegas, Nevada -0 (0) - telephone
More informationCase 1:13-cv MMS Document 53 Filed 06/08/15 Page 1 of 15. No C (Judge Sweeney) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Case 1:13-cv-00466-MMS Document 53 Filed 06/08/15 Page 1 of 15 No. 13-466C (Judge Sweeney) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS JOSEPH CACCIAPALLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT CREWZERS FIRE CREW ) TRANSPORT, INC., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 2011-5069 ) UNITED STATES, ) ) Appellee. ) APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) *** *** *** ***
Case: 5:17-cv-00351-DCR Doc #: 19 Filed: 03/15/18 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 440 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington THOMAS NORTON, et al., V. Plaintiffs,
More informationNORMAN v. U.S., Cite as 117 AFTR 2d (126 Fed. Cl. 277), (Ct Fed Cl), 04/11/2016. Mindy P. NORMAN, PLAINTIFF v. THE UNITED STATES, DEFENDANT.
American Federal Tax Reports NORMAN v. U.S., Cite as 117 AFTR 2d 2016-1279 (126 Fed. Cl. 277), (Ct Fed Cl), 04/11/2016 Mindy P. NORMAN, PLAINTIFF v. THE UNITED STATES, DEFENDANT. Case Information: [pg.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ) ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM ) NOW et al., ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 08-CV-4084-NKL
More informationoperated (then known as ClinNet Solutions, LLC, whose members were Martin Clegg,
Jumpstart Of Sarasota LLC v. ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc. Doc. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION JUMPSTART OF SARASOTA, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. Richmond Division. v. ) Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-799 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Harmon v. CB Squared Services Incorporated Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division OLLIE LEON HARMON III, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-799
More informationCase 1:16-cv ESH Document 25 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:16-cv-00745-ESH Document 25 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No.
More informationLawrence Walker v. Comm Social Security
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-2-2010 Lawrence Walker v. Comm Social Security Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 08-1446 Follow
More informationCase 3:14-cv WWE Document 37 Filed 09/05/14 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 3:14-cv-00260-WWE Document 37 Filed 09/05/14 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT CONLEY MONK, KEVIN MARRET, ) GEORGE SIDERS, JAMES COTTAM, ) JAMES DAVIS, VIETNAM
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE CIC SERVICES, LLC, and RYAN, LLC, v. Plaintiffs, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationIn The United States Court of Federal Claims No C
In The United States Court of Federal Claims No. 13-194C (Filed Under Seal: September 3, 2014) Reissued: September 16, 2014 1 COMPLIANCE SOLUTIONS OCCUPATIONAL TRAINERS, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. Alexandria Division ) ) This matter is before the Court on Defendant Catalin
Case 1:12-cv-00158-JCC-TCB Document 34 Filed 05/23/12 Page 1 of 16 PageID# 160 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division PRECISION FRANCHISING, LLC, )
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-56657, 06/08/2016, ID: 10006069, DktEntry: 32-1, Page 1 of 11 (1 of 16) FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEBORAH A. LYONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICHAEL &
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Staples v. United States of America Doc. 35 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA WILLIAM STAPLES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-10-1007-C ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 13-5055 Document: 37-2 Page: 1 Filed: 04/09/2014 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ERIC D. CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. 2013-5055 Appeal
More informationCase 2:18-cv JES-MRM Document 35 Filed 06/21/18 Page 1 of 15 PageID 344
Case 2:18-cv-00099-JES-MRM Document 35 Filed 06/21/18 Page 1 of 15 PageID 344 A. SCOTT LOGAN, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION v. Case No: 2:18-cv-99-FtM-29MRM
More informationCase 2:15-cv JCC Document 28 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 9
Case :-cv-0-jcc Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE PUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE and SIERRA CLUB v. Plaintiffs, SCOTT PRUITT, in
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 1:15-cv IMK Document 8 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 137
Case 1:15-cv-00110-IMK Document 8 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 137 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CLARKSBURG DIVISION MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case: 09-56786 12/18/2012 ID: 8443743 DktEntry: 101 Page: 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROSALINA CUELLAR DE OSORIO; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS;
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/12/2013 INDEX NO /2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/12/2013
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/12/2013 INDEX NO. 653787/2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/12/2013 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK HOME EQUITY MORTGAGE TRUST SERIES
More informationIn the United States Court of Federal Claims
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 12-780 C (Filed March 7, 2014) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC., v. Plaintiff, THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. * * * * * *
More informationCase 1:09-cv JCC-IDD Document 26 Filed 03/08/10 Page 1 of 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Case 1:09-cv-01149-JCC-IDD Document 26 Filed 03/08/10 Page 1 of 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER ) COMPANY ) )
More informationPlaintiffs Allina Heal th Services, et al. ("Plaintiffs"), bring this action against Sylvia M. Burwell, in her official
ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES et al v. BURWELL Doc. 23 @^M セ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES, ) et al., ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) SYLVIA M. BURWELL, Secretary )
More informationCase 5:16-cv AB-DTB Document 43 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:192 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 5:16-cv-00339-AB-DTB Document 43 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:192 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JS-6 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No.: ED CV 16-00339-AB (DTBx)
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case Number Honorable David M.
Grange Insurance Company of Michigan v. Parrish et al Doc. 159 GRANGE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Case Number
More informationCAUSE NO. D-1-GN TIFFANY MCMILLAN IN THE DISTRICT COURT. vs. 419th JUDICIAL DISTRICT. Defendants. TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-18-002394 TIFFANY MCMILLAN IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, vs. 419th JUDICIAL DISTRICT LAKEWAY CITY COUNCIL and SANDY COX, Defendants. TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS NON-PARTY CITY OF LAKEWAY S
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OPINION AND ORDER
Case 4:02-cv-00427-GKF-FHM Document 79 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/31/2009 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA WILLIAM S. FLETCHER, CHARLES A. PRATT, JUANITA
More informationCase 1:16-cv MMS Document 8 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 34 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Case 1:16-cv-00259-MMS Document 8 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 34 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS HEALTH REPUBLIC INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 16-259C v. ) (Judge Sweeney) ) UNITED
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit VICKIE H. AKERS, Claimant-Appellant, v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee. 2011-7018 Appeal from the United States
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION CASE NO. 12-CV-5162 ORDER
Case 5:12-cv-05162-SOH Document 146 Filed 09/26/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 2456 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION CITY OF PONTIAC GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
More informationIn the United States Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:15-cv-00342-NBF Document 69 Filed 10/17/18 Page 1 of 25 In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 15-342L (Filed: October 17, 2018) INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., v. THE UNITED STATES,
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 informationCase 1:08-cv RWR-JMF Document 63 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cv-00961-RWR-JMF Document 63 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-961
More informationIn the United States Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:17-cv-03000-SGB Document 106 Filed 12/08/17 Page 1 of 8 In the United States Court of Federal Claims Filed: December 8, 2017 IN RE ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIRS Master Docket
More informationCase 9:16-cv KAM Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2017 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:16-cv-81973-KAM Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2017 Page 1 of 13 MIGUEL RIOS AND SHIRLEY H. RIOS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 16-81973-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/24/ :27 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/24/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/24/2016 12:27 PM INDEX NO. 651454/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/24/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK CRICKET STOCKHOLDER REP,
More informationPlaintiff John Kelleher brings this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
Kelleher v. Fred A. Cook, Inc. Doc. 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------x JOHN KELLEHER, Plaintiff, v. FRED A. COOK,
More informationDEVELOPMENTS AND CHALLENGES
DEVELOPMENTS AND CHALLENGES IN FEDERAL JURISDICTION JUDGE ROBERT J. SHELBY CHIEF JUDGE DAVID NUFFER 11 TH ANNUALSOUTHERNUTAHFEDERALLAWSYMPOSIUM MAY11, 2018 Utah Plaintiff sues Defendant LLC in federal
More informationCase 1:15-cv JCC-TCB Document 34 Filed 03/01/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID# 357
Case 1:15-cv-01463-JCC-TCB Document 34 Filed 03/01/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID# 357 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division MERIDIAN INVESTMENTS, INC. )
More informationCase 1:16-cv JMS-DML Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 189
Case 1:16-cv-02431-JMS-DML Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 189 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION JOHN DOE, formerly known as ) JANE DOE,
More informationPlaintiff G&G Products has filed suit against Durable Ideas, LLC, d /b / a Dura
STATE OF MAINE YORK, SS. SUPERIOR COURT Civil Action Docket No. CV-15-280 G&G PRODUCTS, LLC, Plaintiff, V. ORDER RAAD MOBREM, DURABLE IDEAS, LLC d /b / a Dura Doggie, and INTERNATIONAL PET SOLUTIONS, LLC
More informationCase: 1:12-cv Document #: 55 Filed: 02/25/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:525
Case: 1:12-cv-06357 Document #: 55 Filed: 02/25/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:525 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PINE TOP RECEIVABLES OF ILLINOIS, LLC, a limited
More informationMSHA Document Requests During Investigations
MSHA Document Requests During Investigations Derek Baxter Division of Mine Safety and Health U.S. Department of Labor Office of the Solicitor Arlington, Virginia Mark E. Heath Spilman Thomas & Battle,
More informationCase 1:13-cv MMS Document 433 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 433 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS WASHINGTON FEDERAL, et al., FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC., et al., *Additional plaintiffs on following
More informationCase 2:17-cv JNP-BCW Document 29 Filed 01/08/19 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
Case 2:17-cv-01203-JNP-BCW Document 29 Filed 01/08/19 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH R. FLOYD ASHER, v. Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION
More informationCase 2:06-cv JS-WDW Document 18 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 1 of 13. Plaintiffs,
Case 2:06-cv-01238-JS-WDW Document 18 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------X JEFFREY SCHAUB and HOWARD SCHAUB, as
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA PRISM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) 8:12CV123 ) v. ) ) SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P., D/B/A ) MEMORANDUM OPINION SPRINT PCS, ) ) Defendant.
More informationCase 2:15-cv DN-BCW Document 111 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:15-cv-00828-DN-BCW Document 111 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 8 JOHN W. HUBER, United States Attorney (#7226) JOHN K. MANGUM, Assistant United States Attorney (#2072) 185 South State Street, Suite 300
More informationCase 2:17-cv TLN-EFB Document 4 Filed 07/19/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case :-cv-0-tln-efb Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 WILLIAM J. WHITSITT, Plaintiff, v. CATO IRS AGENT, et al., Defendants. No. :-cv--efb
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 informationCase 2:06-cv JCC Document 51 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :0-cv-00-JCC Document Filed /0/0 Page of 0 0 JAMES S. GORDON, Jr., a married individual, d/b/a GORDONWORKS.COM ; OMNI INNOVATIONS, LLC., a Washington limited liability company, v. Plaintiffs, VIRTUMUNDO,
More informationCase 1:15-cv KBJ Document 16 Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:15-cv-00875-KBJ Document 16 Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NATASHA DALLEY, Plaintiff, v. No. 15 cv-0875 (KBJ MITCHELL RUBENSTEIN & ASSOCIATES,
More informationWilliam G. Kanellis, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., Counsel for Defendant.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 07-532C Filed: July 7, 2008 TO BE PUBLISHED AXIOM RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, INC., Plaintiff, Bid Protest; Injunction; v. Notice Of Appeal As Of Right, Fed. R.
More informationCase 1:08-cv WS-C Document 28 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
Case 1:08-cv-00182-WS-C Document 28 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA STATE OF ALABAMA * * Plaintiff, * * CASE NO: C.A. 08-0182-WS-C
More informationThe government issued a subpoena to Astellas Pharma, Inc., demanding the. production of documents, and later entered into an agreement with Astellas
ASTELLAS US HOLDING, INC., and ASTELLAS PHARMA US, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION v. Plaintiffs, STARR INDEMNITY AND LIABILITY COMPANY, BEAZLEY
More informationCase 1:14-cv MMS Document 28 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS. Case No C
Case 1:14-cv-00740-MMS Document 28 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS LOUISE RAFTER, JOSEPHINE RATTIEN, STEPHEN RATTIEN, PERSHING SQUARE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.,
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 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 informationCase 5:16-cv Document 49 Filed 03/02/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 499
Case 5:16-cv-10035 Document 49 Filed 03/02/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 499 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION DONNA HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #11-1066 Document #1420668 Filed: 02/14/2013 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY ) UTILITY COMMISSIONERS,
More informationCase: 4:15-cv RWS Doc. #: 30 Filed: 05/04/15 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 183
Case: 4:15-cv-00464-RWS Doc. #: 30 Filed: 05/04/15 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 183 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION GRYPHON INVESTMENTS III, LLC, Plaintiff, Case No.
More informationCase 1:09-cv JLK Document 80-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:09-cv-00091-JLK Document 80-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 Civil Action No. 09-cv-00091-JLK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO COLORADO ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant/s.
Case :-cv-0-jak -JEM Document #:0 Filed 0// Page of Page ID UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JONATHAN BIRDT, Plaintiff/s, v. CHARLIE BECK, et al., Defendant/s. Case No. LA CV-0
More informationMEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case 3:18-cv-01099-NJR-RJD Document 19 Filed 06/12/18 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #348 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS TODD RAMSEY, FREDERICK BUTLER, MARTA NELSON, DIANE
More informationCase 6:05-cv CJS-MWP Document 23 Filed 01/18/2006 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Defendant.
Case 6:05-cv-06344-CJS-MWP Document 23 Filed 01/18/2006 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SCOTT E. WOODWORTH and LYNN M. WOODWORTH, -vs- ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 3:17-cv MPS Document 28 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 3:17-cv-01586-MPS Document 28 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ASHLEY BROOK SMITH, Plaintiff, No. 3:17-CV-1586-MPS v. JRK RESIDENTIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, ) Secretary of Labor, United States Department ) of Labor, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) STATE OF ALASKA, Department
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 informationCase 2:74-cv MJP Document 21 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :-cv-00-mjp Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 SUSAN B. LONG, et al., v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant.
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 1:13-cv PB Document 8 Filed 12/04/13 Page 1 of 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Case 1:13-cv-00401-PB Document 8 Filed 12/04/13 Page 1 of 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ROGER A. SEVIGNY, in his official ) Civil No. 13-401-PB Capacity as INSURANCE
More informationBloostein v Morrison Cohen LLP 2017 NY Slip Op 31238(U) June 7, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2012 Judge: Anil C.
Bloostein v Morrison Cohen LLP 2017 NY Slip Op 31238(U) June 7, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 651242/2012 Judge: Anil C. Singh Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY
More information