The petitioner seeks judicial review of the respondent's denial of a request for
|
|
- Adam Perry
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, ss. GARY REINER, SUPERIOR COURT CNILACTION Docket No. AP 'f ' t.j 1:,' i{',\ J 1-./,/ ',',.y"'/,. I. Petitioner v. DECISION AND ORDER STATE TAX ASSESSOR, Respondent DONALD L. G~BR~EC\-\T LAW LlBf'r',Il:, The petitioner seeks judicial review of the respondent's denial of a request for reconsideration of the respondent's assessment that petitioner was liable for income taxes withheld, interest, and penalties as a responsible individual on behalf of Kittery Health Club, Inc. d/b/a Danish Health Club (the Club). Respondent's Statement of Material Facts (RSMF) <J[<J[ Respondent has moved for summary judgment. M.R. Civ. P. 56. The facts of this case are uncontested. 1 On September 30, 2005, following a trial in federal district court, a jury found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of interstate prostitution conspiracy; violation of the federal Travel Act; inducement of interstate travel to engage in prostitution; and conspiracy to commit money laundering in connection with his role in the operation of the Club. (RSMF <J[<J[ 1-3.) In a post-verdict civil forfeiture proceeding, the Maine District Court made a series of factual findings relating to the proper amount of forfeiture award against the 1 The respondent filed a statement of material facts (RSMF). The petitioner's response to the RSMF contains no record citations as required. M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(2). Accordingly, the RSMF are deemed admitted. rd. 56(h)(4). The petitioner also filed a statement of material facts. M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(2). Because petitioner's statements of fact contain no record citations, the court "may disregard any statement of fact not supported by a specific citation to record material..." rd. 56(h)(4).
2 petitioner in connection with the Club's illegal business activities between August 23, 2000 and June 9, (Id. <J[<J[ 5-6; see United States v. Reiner, 397 F. Supp. 2d 101 (D. Me. 2005).) Among the District Court's findings were 1) the sole purpose of the Club was prostitution and all deposits related to the Club were illegal proceeds; 2) the petitioner's relationship to the Club was not merely that of an attorney acting to counsel the Club; 3) the petitioner was affirmatively acting to assist the Club in its illegal business activities; 4) the petitioner was involved in the day-to-day business management of the Club, including handling of employment issues and customer disputes on behalf of the Club; 5) the petitioner participated in the hiring and licensing of the Club's masseuses/prostitutes; 6) the petitioner met and spoke regularly with the masseuses/prostitutes' "pimps," particularly when the customers complained about a particular masseuse/prostitute; 7) the petitioner participated in the design of an advertising scheme on ~ehalf of the Club; 8) the petitioner assumed a personal role in the Club's revenue collections, including business deposits and withdrawals on the Club's behalf; 9) the petitioner personally took custody of the Club's receipts and deposited them in the Club's business operating account; 10) the Club's deposits were disbursed, inter alia, to a trust, for which the petitioner was a trustee, to the petitioner, and to the petitioner's law firm; 11) the petitioner aided and abetted the Club's generation of illegal revenue throughout the time period and assumed a leadership role in the Club's business. (RSMF <J[<J[ ) On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the findings of the District Court. (RSMF <J[ 23; see United States v. Reiner, 500 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2007).) The First Circuit expanded on the findings and conclusions of the District Court as follows: 1) the petitioner personally ran the Club between ; 2) he was responsible for all personnel decisions regarding the female masseuses/ prostitutes; 3) he handled all financial 2
3 aspects of the Club's business; 4) he was responsible for the content of the Club's print advertisement that ran in various newspapers and periodicals in late 2003 and early (RSMF <JI<JI 24; 29; ) The First Circuit also upheld the District Court's sentencing adjustment based on the petitioner's extensive involvement and leadership role in running the Club. (RSMF <JI<JI ) Discussion The respondent argues that because of the findings of the Federal District Court and First Circuit Court, the petitioner is collaterally estopped from raising the issue he now raises in this petition for judicial review, that he is not a "responsible individual" pursuant to 36 M.R.S.A. 177(1). Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, "prevents the relitigation of factual issues already decided if the identical issue was determined by a prior final judgment, and the party estopped had a fair opportunity and incentive to litigate the issue in a prior proceeding." Whereas claim preclusion is focused on the claims set forth in prior proceeding, collateral estoppel concerns factual issues, and applies even when the two proceedings offer different types of remedies. Collateral estoppel can be applied to administrative proceedings as well as to court proceedings. Portland Water District v. Town of Standish, 2008 ME 23, <JI 9, 940 A.2d 1097, 1100 (quoting Macomber v. MacQuinn-Tweedie, 2003 ME 121, <JI 22,834 A.2d 131, ). The petitioner argues that the respondent was not a party to the prior litigation and tax liability was not the issue. The fact that the respondent was not a party to the prior litigation is irrelevant; the party sought to be estopped, the petitioner, was a party to the prior litigation. Id. The issue is whether the petitioner had fair opportunity and incentive to litigate the factual issue involved in his petition for judicial review: does the petitioner qualify as a "responsible individual" because he was "responsible for the control or management of the funds or finances" of the Club or "was responsible for the payment 3
4 of [its] taxes.,,2 36 M.R.S.A. 177(1). This record makes clear that the petitioner had an incentive to, and did, litigate these very factual issues in an effort to demonstrate that he had little control over, and responsibility for, the finances of the Club. Portland Water District <rr 9, 940 A.2d at 1100; RSMF <rr<rr 11-22, 24, 29, The factual issues surrounding responsibility for the control of the funds and finances of the company were litigated in the forfeiture proceedings "on the merits and determined by a valid final judgment"; those issues were "essential to the judgment." Sargent v. Buckley, 1997 ME 159, <rr 6, 697 A.2d 1272, The petitioner is collaterally estopped from relitigating those factual questions. Applying the principles from Prescott to the facts found by the Maine District Court and First Circuit, detailed above, the petitioner was a "responsible individual" for purposes of 177. The entry is The Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of the Respondent State Tax Assessor and against th Petitioner Gary Reiner on all issues raised in this Rule 80C etition... Date: May 20, 2008 ncy Mills Justice, Superior 2 The Law Court has outlined several principles used to determine whether someone is a responsible individual under 177: 1) the assessed person has the burden to show he is not a "responsible person"; 2) the term "responsible" is given a broad interpretation aimed at determining whether the individual "had the power to determine whether the taxes should be remitted or paid or had the final word as to what bills should or should not be paid and when"; 3) responsibility is placed upon all individuals with responsibility and authority to avoid default; 4) responsibility is based on the employee's function in the business; 5) in the absence of evidence establishing precise responsibility, an individual can be responsible if he holds corporate office, has check signing or co-signatory authority, or is involved in day-to-day management; 6) to be responsible, the person need not have exclusive control; 7) instructions from a superior not to pay taxes does not take a person out of the "responsible person" category; 8) delegation of responsibility for financial matters does not relieve the person of liability; and 9) "the existence of authority in the general management and fiscal decisionmaking of the company, regardless of whether the authority is actually exercised, is determinative." Prescott v. State Tax Assessor, 1998 ME 250,118-15,721 A.2d 169,
5 Date Fi led _------'8'-'-/_1""--5-'---/0-=--7'---- Kennebec Docket No. A_P_-_0_7_-_S_4 _ County Action P_e_t_i_t_i_o-..,nrr<rF,--o_r_R_e_v_l_'e_w 80C _ Gary Reiner Plaintiff's Attorney John G. Richardson, Esq. Mullaney & Richardson One Wakefield Street, Suite 309 Rochester, NH vs. Maine Revenue Services / Bureau of TaxatioI Defendant's Attorney Scott W. Boak, AAG 6 State House Station Augusta Maine Date of Entry 8/15/07 8/24/07 9/19/07 9/19/07 10/16/07 10/16/07 10/24/07 10/30/07 11/6/07 12/4/07 12/4/07 Second Petition For Review Of Administrative Decision, filed. s/richardson, Esq. Letter entering appearance, filed. s/boak, AAG (no record to be filed) 9/17/07:Notification of Discovery ServiceServed on John Richardson, Esq. on 9/14/07.Filed by S. Baok,AAG Respondent's Motion for an Order to Specify the Future Course of Proceedings, filed. s/boak, AAG (9/14/07) Proposed Order, filed. 10/lS/070RDER SPECIFYING FUTURE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS GRANTED.JudgeMills Copies mailed to parties Rule 26(G) letter, filed. s/boak, AAG ORDER Compelling Answers To Interrogatories and Production of Documents filed. Copy of order sent to counsel of record. This Order is incorporated into the docket by reference at the specific direction of the court. Marden, J. 10/26/07. Motionf.~r Reco"Q.sideration, filed. a/richardson, Esq. (11/5/07) Respondenn's Objection to Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, filed. s/boak, AAG Notification of Discovery Service,i filed. s/richardson., Esq. Petitioner's Resvonses to State Tax Assess~r's First Request for Production o,f Documents; and Petitioner's Answers to State Tax Assessor's First Sflt of Interrogatori~s served on State Tax Assessor on 11/5/07. Decision and Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, filed. s/boak. AAG Statement of Material Facts, filed. s/boak, AAG Request for a Hearing, filed. s/boak, AAG Discov@ry Dispute Conference schedulp.d for December 5, 9:00 State Tax Assessor's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed. s/boak, AAG.
6 Date of Entry 12/7/07 12/26/07 1/15/08 1/31/08 2/5/08 2/25/08 5/21/08 Docket No. ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Marden. J. Motion GRANTED; $ sanction rescinded. Copies mailed to attys of record. Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Motion for Summary Judgment. filed. s/richardson. Esq. Certificate of Service. filed. s/richardson. Esq. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME. Jabar. J. Motion granted. Petitioner has until Feb to file its response. Copies mailed to attys. of record. Petitioner's Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. filed. s/richardson. Esq. Petitioner's Answers to Respondent's Statemtn of Material Facts. filed. s/richardson. Esq. Petitioner's Statement of Material Facts Pursuant to M.R.CIV.P.56 and Supporting Affidavit. filed. s/richardson. Esq. Argument and Memorandum of Law on Collateral Estoppel of Issue Preclusion. filed. s/richardson. Esq. Proposed Order. filed. State Tax Assessor's Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. filed. s/boak. AAG State Tax Assessor's Reply to Petitioner's Statement of Additional Material Facts. filed. s/boak. AAG Redacted replacement copy of Exhibit A to the affidavit of Philip Young. which was filed by the State Tax Assessor in 12/07 in support of the Assessor's motion for summary judgment. s/ Boak. DECISION AND ORDER. Mills. J. (5/20/08) The Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of the Respondent State Tax Assessor and against the Petitioner Gary Reiner on all issues raised in this Rule 80C Petition. Copy mailed to attorneys of record. Copy mailed to repositories.
This matter is before the court on State Tax Assessor's motion to dismiss. The
STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-06-69 -',1,.\ i~[~ I'" --.Y +" It.. :, ":?... - ", ~'" r'..,'.., A I ~,~.-' ';/,.~,.,I,.,~.' I V I ' LIN-COR ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC Petitioner
This case is in front of the court on petitioner's M.R. Civ. P. SOC petition for
1 STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, ss. SUSAN A. THOMAS SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-07-27 \ f ' V (V\J- l'\ (S I\.J - 1..//'.,,' f'f'
This matter is before the court on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of
STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION a a - KENNETH WRIGHT, Petitioner v. ORDER ON MOTION MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent DONALDTWK~M LAW llbrary JAN 1 9 2007
Pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure SOC and the Administrative Procedure
STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-15-3 LAWRENCE AUSTIN, Petitioner, v. STATE OF MAINE BUREAU OF HUMAN RESOURCES, ET AL., DECISION AND ORDER ON THE STATE'S MOTION TO
Before this court is the petitioner's M.R. Civ. P. 80C appeal of a final decision by
STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-08-36 SHARI OUELLETTE, Petitioner v. DECISION AND ORDER THE MAINE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Respondent Before this court
... r,. ~\"" i -- - / I "'-! A.-.). (""'i.(,) ") This matter comes before the court on appeal pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C from a
STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION. DOCI
l,,!. i.. /..1.' r, ~.., /
STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION Do\c:~et,No. CV-191f9~. l,,!. i.. /..1.' r, ~.., / -.. MILTOND. BATES Petitioner v. DECISION AND ORDER THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, MAINE STATE RETIREMENT
may institute, without paying a filing fee, a proceeding under this chapter to secure relief.
Page 1 West's General Laws of Rhode Island Annotated Currentness Title 10. Courts and Civil Procedure--Procedure in Particular Actions Chapter 9.1. Post Conviction Remedy 10-9.1-1. Remedy--To whom available--conditions
Ths matter comes before the court on appeal pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C and a. Background
STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-06-03 5 KS - KEN - /u//? '2Wb STEPHEN GRISWOLD, Petitioner DECISION ON APPEAL STATE OF MAINE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION KENNEBEC, ss. DOCKET NO. AP-07 T 36
1 STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION KENNEBEC, ss. DOCKET NO. AP-07 T 36 STERLING SMITH and SAMUEL SMITH, Petitioners J\ ' '.'.~""" c -'., (' «( v. DECISION AND ORDER INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF
This matter is before the court on Town of Warren Ambulance Service's
STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-05-59 TOWN OF WARREN AMBULANCE SERVICE, Petitioner DECISION AND ORDER MAINE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, MAINE EMERGENCY SERVICES,
governmental action pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C. Following hearing, the petition is FACTUAL BACKGROUND
STATE OF MAINE YORK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-q7-P4 (~f\~ - YOR - '-1j'iJ;iJ07, j SUSAN T. LEGGE, Petitioner v. ORDER OC SECRETARY OF STATE, ~ i~~.,- ~4i 1':,\\f\ Respondent This case
and respondent's M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Count II of the petition.
1 STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-07-78 ) ;\, \ -- ~'~>;' 1 ; " '...-. ',.) ;'w'\
SUPERIOR COURT 1 MAR PENOBSCOT COUNTY I ON PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION REVIEW STATE OF MAINE,
STATE OF MAINE PENOBSCOT, ss. DOUGLAS H. BURR Petitioner I FILED & EHTE-RED SUPERIOR COURT 1 MAR 3 0 2007 I PENOBSCOT COUNTY I SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR.06-174, - S. ' v. VDE ON PETITION
Pending before the court is an appeal of the District Court Small Claims Notice of
STATE OF MAINE ANDROSCOGGIN, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-16-011 FRED AND ELEANOR TAYLOR v. Plaintiff/ A ppellee, MARK WALKER and HOME, SNUGGLERS, INC. Defendant/Appellant. ORDER Pending
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA. vs. Case No: ORDER ESTABLISHING MOTION PRACTICE PROCEDURE
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA Plaintiff, vs. Case No: 2017- Defendant. / ORDER ESTABLISHING MOTION PRACTICE PROCEDURE THIS CAUSE is before the Court
In its complaint, the plaintiff Northeast Bank (Bank) seeks to foreclose on
STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. RE-06-76 NORTHEAST BANK, Plaintiff v. JUDGMENT a=fi =C'..I ~~ «ca co DIRIGO HOUSING -13: I- :I: 0 UJ co (!)....J,--. ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Dodge County. 1) Rules of Decorum. (Sixth Judicial District)
Dodge County (Sixth Judicial District) 1. Rules of Decorum 2. Civil Practice 3. Rules of Criminal Procedure 4. Rules of Family Court Procedure 5. Filing of Papers by Electronic Filing and Facsimile Transmission
District of Columbia False Claims Act
District of Columbia False Claims Act 2-308.03. Claims by District government against contractor (a) (1) All claims by the District government against a contractor arising under or relating to a contract
RESPONDENT S APPENDIX. TABLE OF CONTENTS (Following the order set forth in R. 2:6-1(a))
RESPONDENT S APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS (Following the order set forth in R. 2:6-1(a)) (A) In Civil matters, the pretrial order and pleadings: Complaint... 1a Answer... 2a (B) In Criminal matters, the
Chicago False Claims Act
Chicago False Claims Act Chapter 1-21 False Statements 1-21-010 False Statements. Any person who knowingly makes a false statement of material fact to the city in violation of any statute, ordinance or
Case acs Doc 18 Filed 03/25/15 Entered 03/25/15 12:56:10 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
Case 14-03014-acs Doc 18 Filed 03/25/15 Entered 03/25/15 12:56:10 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY In re: ) ) CHRISTOPHER B. CASWELL ) CASE NO. 14-30011 Debtor )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL NO. 1:04CV46 (1:01CR45 & 3:01CR11-3)
Greer v. USA Doc. 19 Case 1:04-cv-00046-LHT Document 19 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 1 of 8 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL NO. 1:04CV46
FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU - PART 8
FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU - PART 8 COMBINED PART RULES & PROCEDURES Family Court Judge: Court Attorney: Secretary: Part Clerk: HON. MERIK R. AARON KRISTEN REANY, ESQ. MICHELLE
This case is before this Court on Respondents' Motion to Dismiss Petitioner's BOC Petition For Review Of Final Agency Action.
STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, ss. SUPERIOR COURT AUGUSTA DOCKET NO. AP-16-26 MAINE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE, Petitioner v. ORDER ON RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS EDWARD DAHL et. als., Respondents I. Posture
INDIANA FALSE CLAIMS AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT
Indiana False Claims and Whistleblower Protection Act, codified at 5-11-5.5 et seq (as amended through P.L. 109-2014) Indiana Medicaid False Claims and Whistleblower Protection Act, codified at 5-11-5.7
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Main Document Page of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: CHAPTER 7 RONALD C. HAMMOND, JR. and BONNIE M. STILL-HAMMOND, Debtors AMY L. MOIR, CASE NO.
ORDER ESTABLISHING MOTION PRACTICE PROCEDURE. THIS COURT, having determined the need to facilitate an orderly progression of
ORDER ESTABLISHING MOTION PRACTICE PROCEDURE THIS COURT, having determined the need to facilitate an orderly progression of certain civil matters before this Court, finds as follows: A. Discovery motions
l 1\J I f R l D NOV 2 I 1014
l 1\J I f R l D NOV 2 I 1014 STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, SS. MICHAEL J. SIRACUSA, JR., v. Petitioner, STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. SUPERIOR COURT LOCATION: AUGUSTA Docket
Before the court is Plaintiff Shane Corcoran's ("Plaintiff") petition, pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 80C, for review of an August 2, 2005 decision of the
STATE OF MANE CUMBERLAND, ss. SUPEROR COURT CWL ACTON - DOCKET NO. AP-05-062 / SHANE CORCORAN Plaintiff DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHCLES ORDER ON PLANTFF'S 80C APPEAL Respondent
II. Civil Judiciary: Names and Addresses of Judges, Secretaries, and the Manner in Which Judges Are Assigned to Civil Cases...
Table of Contents Bucks County Civil Practice... Bucks 1 Carol A. Shelly, Esquire I. Civil Court Administration, Organization and Court Calendar... Bucks 13 A. Court Personnel... Bucks 13 B. Court Calendar...
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DONALD PRATOLA, Civil Action No (MCA) Petitioner, v. OPINION. WARDEN (SSCF) et a).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DONALD PRATOLA, Civil Action No. 14-3077 (MCA) Petitioner, v. OPINION WARDEN (SSCF) et a)., Respondents. Dockets.Justia.com ARLEO, United States District
Title 15: COURT PROCEDURE -- CRIMINAL
Title 15: COURT PROCEDURE -- CRIMINAL Chapter 517: ASSET FORFEITURE Table of Contents Part 7. ASSET FORFEITURE... Section 5821. SUBJECT PROPERTY... 3 Section 5821-A. PROPERTY NOT SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE
111,AVY! htn I /
STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, ss SUPERIOR COURT AP-13-14,,. - I j'/;:joj
INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES OF JUDGE DEBORAH A. BATTS
INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES OF JUDGE DEBORAH A. BATTS Nothing in my Individual Practices supersedes a specific time period for filing a motion specified by statute or Federal Rule including but not limited to
INDIVIDUAL RULES AND PROCEDURES JUDGE SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN
INDIVIDUAL RULES AND PROCEDURES JUDGE SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN Revised: January 3, 2011 Chambers Deputy/Law Clerk United States District Court Jim Reily Southern District of New York (212) 805-0120 500 Pearl
) mbeifana s /!fj_. Plaintiffs appeal from a decision by Defendant's, Council of the Town of
( STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. AP-17-0006 BRUNSWICK CITIZENS FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNMENT, ROBERT BASKETT, AND SOXNA DICE V. Plaintiffs, TOWN OF BRUNSWICK Defendant. ORDER
STATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION. Petitioner, RULING AND ORDER JENNIFER E. NASHOLD, CHAIRPERSON:
STATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION TITAN INTERNATIONAL, INC., DOCKET NO. 04-T-204 Petitioner, vs. RULING AND ORDER WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. JENNIFER E. NASHOLD, CHAIRPERSON:
Rhode Island False Claims Act
Rhode Island False Claims Act 9-1.1-1. Name of act. [Effective until February 15, 2008.] This chapter may be cited as the State False Claims Act. 9-1.1-2. Definitions. [Effective until February 15, 2008.]
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-2016-53 REBEKAH KARKOS, Petitioner v. DECISION AND ORDER MAINE STATE BUREAU OF IDENTIFICATION, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY Respondent The
- *. - : I -. Docket No. AP I. NATURE OF ACTION. This is an appeal by Normand Lauze, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80B, from the
STATE OF MAINE Cumberland, ss SUPERIOR COURT " -..- Civil Action - *. - : I -. Docket No. AP-05-079 NORMAND LAUZE, Appellant / Plaintiff DECISION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (M.R.Civ.P. 80B) TOWN OF HARPSWELL,
Case 1:04-cv RHB Document 27 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:04-cv-00749-RHB Document 27 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, JOHN H. DETAR,
In Count I of the complaint in this action, the Town of Litchfield alleges that the
STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, SS. TOWN OF LITCHFIELD, SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-09-40, ~ vj ~- I~, C.) - Co /;-7/2 0 10 I i Plaintiff v. DECISION AND ORDER DAVID MARZILLI et al., Defendants
Case 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
BCN Telecom, Inc. ("BCN') appeals the Decision ofthe Maine Board of Tax. Appeals ("BOTA") affirming the finding of the Maine State Tax Assessor (the
STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, SS. SUPERIOR COURT LOCATION: Augusta Docket No. AP-13-26 BCN TELECOM, INC., Petitioner, v. MAINE STATE TAX ASSESSOR, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ORDER ON THE PARTIES' MOTIONS ) FOR SUMMARY
v C;t),!<elJ I/U/:1 01 0
STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, SS. STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION D9cket No. CR-09-942 v C;t),!
CASE NUMBER: DIV 71. It appearing that this case is at issue and can be set for trial, it is ORDERED as follows:
Plaintiff(s), vs. Defendant(s). / IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: DIV 71 UNIFORM ORDER REGARDING SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL, PRE-TRIAL
OFFICE OF THE CLERK B
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit OFFICE OF THE CLERK Byron White United States Courthouse 1823 Stout Street Denver, Colorado 80257 Elizabeth A. Shumaker (303) 844-3157 Douglas E. Cressler
Chapter II BAY MILLS COURT OF APPEALS
Chapter II BAY MILLS COURT OF APPEALS 201. CREATION OF THE BAY MILLS COURT OF APPEALS. There shall be a Bay Mills Court of Appeals consisting of the three appeals judges. Any number of judges may be appointed
v. DECISION AND ORDERS ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS plaintiff, Anthony Machiavelli and the defendants, Warden Jeffrey Merrill (Merrill) and
STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss ANTHONY MACHIAVELLI, SUPERIOR COURT Civil Action Do~k~tN0:,C:r70g:~~~ If::T). ',I e"5du,, Plaintiff v. DECISION AND ORDERS ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS JEFFREY MERRRILL
Video Course Evaluation Form. Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of Course You Just Watched
Garden State CLE 21 Winthrop Road Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648 (609) 895-0046 fax- 609-895-1899 Atty2starz@aol.com! Video Course Evaluation Form Attorney Name Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of
Follow this and additional works at:
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-25-2013 USA v. Roger Sedlak Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 11-2892 Follow this and additional
In front of the court is petitioner's M.R. Civ. P. 80C petition for judicial review of
STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-07-60 I, ~ SHARON MCPHEE, Petitioner v. DECISION AND ORDER MAINE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, and Respondent JOANNE MCPHEE, Intervenor
LOCAL COURT RULES. 39th Judicial Circuit
LOCAL COURT RULES of the 39th Judicial Circuit Barry, Lawrence and Stone Counties Circuit Judge Hon. Jack A. L. Goodman Associate Circuit Judges Hon. Victor W. Head, Barry County, Associate Division I
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. No. CV PHX-DGC (SPL) Petitioner, vs.
Case 2:14-cv-00110-DGC--SPL Document 4 Filed 02/12/14 Page 1 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
Augusta for purposes of taking a polygraph examination. The Oakland police officer
STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR-08-534 ( } (\/\, \) w» ~"" l./ :...,.".' ',._,... i" STATE OF MAINE ; I -, ~' r- I I!. r,....._ v. DECISION BRIAN ARBO, Defendant
Case 3:11-cv JPG-PMF Document 140 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #1785
Case 3:11-cv-00879-JPG-PMF Document 140 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #1785 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS vs.
IN 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,
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Goldfinger's claims against him for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment,
v,µ I STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CUMSC-CV-15-72 ALICER. GOLDFINGER, Plaintiff, V. DAVID A. DUBINSKY, Defendant. STATE OF MAINc Cumbafand, st, Clerk's Office MAR
New York State Elec.& Gas Corp. v Hudson Riv NY Slip Op 30817(U) April 23, 2013 Supreme Court, Albany County Docket Number: Judge:
New York State Elec.& Gas Corp. v Hudson Riv. 2013 NY Slip Op 30817(U) April 23, 2013 Supreme Court, Albany County Docket Number: 6279-12 Judge: Joseph C. Teresi Republished from New York State Unified
NEW JERSEY APPELLATE PRACTICE HANDBOOK
NEW JERSEY APPELLATE PRACTICE HANDBOOK TENTH EDITION NEW JERSEY APPELLATE PRACTICE STUDY COMMITTEE OF THE NEW JERSEY STATE BAR ASSOCIATION NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION ONE CONSTITUTION
{/f\1- KL~J--()r//I)D!J
STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, ss SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO.
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO DISSOLVE ATTACHMENT
STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. BUSINESS AND CONSUMER COURT Location: Portland CONTI ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff, v. Docket No. BCD-CV-15-49 / THERMOGEN I, LLC CA TE STREET CAPITAL, INC. and GNP WEST,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT FRANKFORT CIVIL ACTION NO.: KKC MEMORANDUM ORDER
Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 96 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT FRANKFORT CIVIL ACTION NO.: 05-18-KKC AT ~ Q V LESLIE G Y cl 7b~FR CLERK u
USA v. Sosa-Rodriguez
2002 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-5-2002 USA v. Sosa-Rodriguez Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 1-1218 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002
declaratory judgment (count II). The defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim
STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. RE-08-01 1. KNAUER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff v. DECISION MATHEW DELISLE, Defendant Before the court is the plaintiff's complaint
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and PHILIPS LIGHTING NORTH AMERICA CORP., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 14-12298-DJC WANGS ALLIANCE CORP., d/b/a WAC LIGHTING
SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, ss. RECEIVED & FILED DOCKET NO. AUBSC-AP-16-2 SEP ) ) ) ) )
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, ss. RECEIVED & FILED DOCKET NO. AUBSC-AP-16-2 CHARLEEN TYRA, V. Plaintiff, MAURICE BLONDIN, Defendant. SEP 1 9 2016 ANDRciSCOGG!N SUPERIOR COURtRDER TO DENY
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-14-1074 STEVEN J. WILSON and CHRISTINA R. WILSON APPELLANTS V. Opinion Delivered APRIL 22, 2015 APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CV-2014-350-6]
Dated: Louise Lawyer Attorney for Plaintiff
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Please note: This sample document is redacted from an actual research and writing project we did for a customer some time ago. It reflects the law as of the date we completed it. Because
ADAMS COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE BUSINESS OF COURTS
ADAMS COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Rule 51. Title and Citation of Rules. Scope. All civil procedural rules adopted by the Adams County Court of Common Pleas shall be known as the
United States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 16-3970 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAJUAN KEY, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court
CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION CALENDAR 98, COURTROOM 3001 CHICAGO, IL (312)
CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION CALENDAR 98, COURTROOM 3001 CHICAGO, IL 60602 (312603-7957 ASSOCIATE JUDGE JAMES KAPLAN STANDING ORDER No. 1 Amended September 25, 2018 1 GENERAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT LLOYD PEARL, FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 07-12070 D. C. Docket Nos. 05-00152-CV-J-25-MCR 01-00251-CR-J-2 No. 07-12715 D. C. Docket Nos. 04-01329-CV-J-25-MCR
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION AT COVINGTON P.A.M. TRANSPORT, INC. Plaintiff Philip Emiabata, proceeding pro se, filed this
Emiabata v. P.A.M. Transport, Inc. Doc. 54 EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION AT COVINGTON CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:18-cv-45 (WOB-CJS) PHILIP EMIABATA PLAINTIFF VS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS. STATE OF MAINE Cumberla nd ss Clerk 's Office. Before the court is defendant Town of Windham's motion to dismiss plaintiff
STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION Docket No. AP-15-031 CHRISTOPHER A. BOND, Plaintiff V. ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS TOWN OF WINDHAM, Defendant STATE OF MAINE Cumberla nd ss Clerk
Case 3:15-cv WHA Document 150 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 7
Case :-cv-0-wha Document 0 Filed 0// Page of Henrik Mosesi, Esq. (SBN: ) Anthony Lupu, Esq. (SBN ) Pillar Law Group APLC 0 S. Rodeo Drive, Suite 0 Beverly Hills, CA 0 Tel.: 0--0000 Fax: -- Henrik@Pillar.law
O.C.G.A. TITLE 23 Chapter 3 Article 6. GEORGIA CODE Copyright 2015 by The State of Georgia All rights reserved.
O.C.G.A. TITLE 23 Chapter 3 Article 6 GEORGIA CODE Copyright 2015 by The State of Georgia All rights reserved. *** Current Through the 2015 Regular Session *** TITLE 23. EQUITY CHAPTER 3. EQUITABLE REMEDIES
Docket Number:2849 MOORE FLESHER TRUCKING CO., INC. Dwight L. Koerber Jr., Esquire CLOSED VS.
Docket Number:2849 MOORE FLESHER TRUCKING CO., INC. Dwight L. Koerber Jr., Esquire VS. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA STATE WORKMEN S INSURANCE FUND Roger H. Caffier, Chief Counsel Peter Von Getzie, Assistant
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF WAKE Nc Coastal Federation, Cape Fear River Watch, Penderwatch and Conservancy, Sierra Club Petitioner v. North Carolina Department Of Environment And Natural Resources,
RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 3:21. SENTENCE AND JUDGMENT; WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA; PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION; PROBATION
RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 3:21. SENTENCE AND JUDGMENT; WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA; PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION; PROBATION Rule 3:21-1. Withdrawal of Plea A motion to withdraw a plea
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WAKE 08 CVS STROOCK, STROOCK & LAVAN LLP, ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) ORDER AND OPINION ) ROBERT DORF, ) Defendant )
Stroock, Stroock & Lavan LLP v. Dorf, 2010 NCBC 3. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WAKE 08 CVS 14248 STROOCK, STROOCK & LAVAN LLP, ) Plaintiff
A fy\ '"" -s A- L7 -- 7/.: 0 I Lf
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT - A fy\ '"" -s A- L7 -- 7/.: 0 I Lf Sagadahoc, ss. JEAN WOLKENS Petitioner v. Docket No. BATSC-AP-13-003 STATE OF MAINE SECRETARY OF STATE Respondent DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Asset Forfeiture Model State Law April 9, 2011
Asset Forfeiture Model State Law April 9, 2011 Table of Contents GENERAL PROVISIONS 100.01 Definitions 100.02 Purpose 100.03 Exclusivity 100.04 Criminal asset forfeiture 100.05 Conviction required; standard
STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP CAL VIN GOODHUE, Petitioner DECISION AND ORDER
. STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-2017-26 CAL VIN GOODHUE, Petitioner V. DECISION AND ORDER SECRETARY OF STATE, Respondent The matter before the court is an appeal
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv DLG.
Case: 14-11084 Date Filed: 12/19/2014 Page: 1 of 16 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11084 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-22737-DLG AARON CAMACHO
6 California Procedure (5th), Proceedings Without Trial
6 California Procedure (5th), Proceedings Without Trial I. MOTIONS A. In General. 1. [ 1] Application for Order. 2. [ 2] Types of Motions. 3. [ 3] Main Action of Proceeding. 4. [ 4] Party to Proceeding.
2001 PA Super 39 : : : : : : Appeal from the Order of January 31, 2000 In the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division Allegheny County, No.
GEORGE A. SPISAK, JR., Appellant, v. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN, Appellee 2001 PA Super 39 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 229 WDA 2000 Appeal from the Order of January 31, 2000 In the Court of Common
Christian Bouriez v. Carnegie Mellon Univ
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-7-2011 Christian Bouriez v. Carnegie Mellon Univ Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-2146
McKenna v. Philadelphia
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-25-2008 McKenna v. Philadelphia Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-4759 Follow this
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. vs. No. 31,783. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY James Waylon Counts, District Judge
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this
Schedule of Forms. Rule No. Form No. Source
QUEEN S BENCH FORMS SCHEDULE OF FORMS Schedule of Forms FORMS FOR PART 1 [Foundational Rules] Form Nil Rule No. Form No. Source FORMS FOR PART 2 [Parties to Litigation] Form Rule No. Form No. Source Notice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR VACATUR AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 22
Case :-cr-00-srb Document 0 Filed 0// Page of Dennis I. Wilenchik, #000 John D. Wilenchik, #0 admin@wb-law.com 0 Mark Goldman, #0 Vincent R. Mayr, #0 Jeff S. Surdakowski, #00 North th Street, Suite Scottsdale,
Follow this and additional works at:
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-10-2013 USA v. John Purcell Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-1982 Follow this and additional
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION PLEA AGREEMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Cr. No. H-02-0665 BEN F. GLISAN, JR., Defendant. PLEA AGREEMENT Pursuant
JUL ND tv!- C1AJn - V1--o3 i4- RECEiVED. On March 20, 2014, the court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
f N J E R E D JUt 2 8?014 STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS GROUP, v. Plaintiff S SUPERIOR COURT CIVILACTION Cumb~~~~,~:~~~TNO.CV- 13-361 J JUL 03 2014 ND tv!- C1AJn - V1--o3 i4- RECEiVED
USA v. Anthony Spence
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-3-2014 USA v. Anthony Spence Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 13-1395 Follow this and additional
Case 5:00-cv FB Document 26 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 1 of 6
Case 5:00-cv-01081-FB Document 26 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION FILED EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 2:16-cv-02814-JFB Document 9 Filed 02/27/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 223 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK N o 16-CV-2814 (JFB) RAYMOND A. TOWNSEND, Appellant, VERSUS GERALYN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO RGS AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY
Case 1:13-cv-13168-RGS Document 58 Filed 04/04/16 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-13168-RGS AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY v. JOHN