New Son Yeng Produce LLC v. United One Transp., Inc.
|
|
- Andrew Flynn
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 New Son Yeng Produce LLC v. United One Transp., Inc. United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York March 9, 2015, Decided; March 9, 2015, Filed CV (FB)(MDG) Reporter 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS NEW SON YENG PRODUCE LLC, Plaintiff, - against - UNITED ONE TRANSPORT, INC and JOHN DOE, person intended to be employed or engaged by the corporate defendant to operate the truck in this action, Defendants. Subsequent History: Adopted by, Judgment entered by New Son Yeng Produce, Inc. v. United One Transp., Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 27, 2015) Counsel: [*1] For New Son Yeng Produce, Inc., Plaintiff: Leonard Kreinces, LEAD ATTORNEY, Kreinces & Rosenberg, P.C., Westbury, NY. Judges: MARILYN D. GO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Opinion by: MARILYN D. GO Opinion REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff New Son Yeng Produce LLC ( New Son Yeng ) brings this action pursuant to the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C et seq., to recover its losses caused by a damaged shipment of 768 cartons of fresh lychee. The Honorable Frederic Block referred plaintiff s motion for default judgment against defendant United One Transport, Inc. ( United One ) to me to report and recommend. BACKGROUND The following facts adduced from plaintiff s Complaint ( Compl. ) (ct. doc. 1), the affidavit of Jimmy Sithol Yin in support of the default motion ( Yin Aff. ) (ct. doc. 19), and the exhibits attached thereto, are undisputed and taken as true for purposes of deciding this motion. See Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). Plaintiff New Son Yeng is a New York corporation doing business in Brooklyn, New York. Compl. at 2. On May 25, 2013, plaintiff purchased from Dynasty Produce and Trading Co., Inc. ( Dynasty ) 768 cartons of fresh lychee for $34,560 and mangos which are not the subject of this lawsuit. Compl. at 14, 24; Yin Aff. at 6, 1 Exh. C (ct. [*2] doc. 19-6) (Invoice). As evidenced in a bill of lading dated May 25, 2013, United One agreed to transport the produce from Hildago, Texas to New Son Yeng s business premises in Brooklyn, New York. Compl. at 14; Yin Aff. at 6, 7, Exh. D (ct. doc. 19-7) (Bill of Lading). As confirmed by the bill of lading issued by United One, the lychees were in good order and condition. Compl. at 14, 15; Yin Aff. at 7, Exh. D. Each carton weighed about 15 pounds and contained eight pallets. Compl. at 14. United One agreed to deliver the fresh lychee to New Son Yeng by May 28, See id. at 15, 17; Yin Aff., Exh. E (ct. doc. 19-8) (Bill of Lading). However, United One did not deliver the shipment to New Son Yeng until May 31, See Compl. at 16-17; Yin Aff. at 8, Exh. E. Receiving the delivery under protest, New Son 1 Mr. Yin s affidavit states that the amount is $34,568.00, which I assume is a typographical error since the invoice and the complaint both state that the amount paid was $36,
2 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40863, *3 Page 2 of 6 Yeng immediately requested the U.S. Department of Agriculture s Agriculture Marketing Service ( the USDA Service ) to inspect and grade the fresh lychee. Compl. at 18. Following an [*3] inspection of all the cartons conducted on May 31, 2013 from 8:00 a.m. to 9:14 a.m., the USDA Service found that about 30 to 86 percent of the fresh lychee had brown to black surface discoloration and that the lychee was in early to moderate stages of decay. Id. at 19, 21, 22; Yin Aff., Exh. F (ct. doc. 19-9) (Inspection Certificate). The USDA Service determined that the condition failed to meet the requirements of grade U.S. Number 1 and that the shipment had a check sum of 56 percent damage. Compl. at 21; Yin Aff., Exh. F. While plaintiff attempted to sell the lychee, the USDA Service conducted a second inspection on June 14, Yin Aff. at 9. The inspection certificate indicated that the fruit was in even worse condition and that much of the lot was discolored. Id. and Exh. F at 2. The fee for each inspection was $138.76, for a total of $ See ct. doc Plaintiff sold the lychee at distressed prices for an aggregate amount of $6, Compl. at 23; Yin Aff. at 10, Exh. G (ct. doc ) (Sale Report). On November 26, 2013, plaintiff sent a notice of claim to United One. See Yin Aff. at 11, Exh. H (ct. doc ) (Pl. s Letter to United One). Having not received a response, [*4] plaintiff instituted the instant action against defendant on March 26, Defendants have failed to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. DISCUSSION I. Default Judgment Standard Entry of a default judgment is a two-step process and requires first that the clerk of the court enter the party s default indicating that a party has failed to plead or otherwise defend. Fed. R. Civ. 55(a). After the clerk s entry of default, the opposing party generally requests that a court enter a default judgment against the defaulting parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). A defendant s default is an admission of all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint except those relating to damages. See Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 1992). The movant need prove only that the compensation sought relate[s] to the damages that naturally flow from the injuries pleaded. Id. [A]fter [a] default,... it remains for the court to consider whether the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action, since a party in default does not admit conclusions of law. Leider v. Ralfe, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15345, 2004 WL , at *7 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (quoting In re Indus. Diamonds Antitrust Litig., 119 F. Supp. 2d 418, 420 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). After establishing liability, the court must also determine the amount of damages that may be assessed. It is in the court s discretion to require an evidentiary hearing or to rely on detailed [*5] affidavits or documentary evidence in making this determination. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); Chun Jie Yin v. Kim, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS , 2008 WL , at *2 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (collecting cases). II. Liability The Carmack Amendment governs the liability of motor carriers for loss or damage to goods transported in interstate commerce and creates uniform national rules that preempt all federal and state common law claims against the carriers. See 49 U.S.C (d); Am. Rock Salt Co., LLC v. Norfolk S. Corp., 387 F. Supp. 2d 197, 202 (W.D.N.Y. 2005). It relieves shippers of the burden of searching out a particular carrier from among the often numerous carriers handling an interstate shipment of goods. See Cleveland v. Beltman North American Co., Inc., 30 F.3d 373, 377 (2d Cir. 1994). The statute imposes broad liability on a common carrier for all losses relating to goods it
3 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40863, *5 Page 3 of 6 transports in interstate commerce. See Union Pacific R.R. v. Greentree Transp. Trucking, 293 F.3d 120, 127 (3d Cir. 2002); Windows, Inc. v. Jordan Panel Sys. Corp., 177 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1999). In fact, Carmack effectively codified the strict liability rule that governed the liability of common carriers at common law. Sompo Japan Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 456 F.3d 54, 59 (2d Cir. 2006) (citations omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp., 561 U.S. 89, 130 S. Ct. 2433, 177 L. Ed. 2d 424 (2010). A plaintiff seeking to recover from a carrier for damage to a shipment under the Carmack Amendment must establish a prima facie case by showing delivery in good condition, arrival in damaged condition, and the amount of damages that resulted from the transportation. Nipponkoa Ins. Co. v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17752, 2011 WL , at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing Missouri Pac. R.R. Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134, 137, 84 S. Ct. 1142, 12 L. Ed. 2d 194 (1964)). New Son Yeng has provided a bill of lading listing United One as the carrier to transport the fruit from Hildago, Texas to Brooklyn, New [*6] York (ct. doc. 19-7) and alleged in the complaint, the fresh lychee was delivered to United One in good condition and was damaged while being transported by United One from Hildago, Texas to Brooklyn, New York. A shipper may prove that the goods were delivered to the carrier in good condition with a clean bill of lading for the shipment, provided that the cargo was packaged in a way that permitted its inspection by the carrier. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Old Dominion Freight Line Inc., 391 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir. 2004). However, in the absence of contrary evidence, the carrier s acknowledgment on the bill of lading is sufficient to support a finding that the goods were in good condition at the point of origin. American Nat. Fire Ins. Co. ex rel. Tabacalera Contreras Cigar Co. v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., 325 F.3d 924, 929 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting Hoover Motor Express Co. v. United States, 262 F.2d 832, 834 (6th Cir. 1959)). The USDA inspection conducted at New Son Yeng s business facility on the same day of delivery showed that about 30 to 86 percent of the fresh lychee had brown to black surface discoloration and that the lychee was in early to moderate stages of decay. Compl. at By statute, the official inspection certificates for fresh fruits and vegetables issued by the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to any law shall be received by all officers and all courts of the United States, in all proceedings under this chapter, and in all transactions upon contract [*7] markets under Commodities Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), as prima-facie evidence of the truth of the statements therein contained. 7 U.S.C.A. 499n. Clearly, plaintiff s undisputed allegations are sufficient to establish liability against United One. III. Damages Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages under the Carmack Amendment, plus interest, filing fees and handling fees. See Compl. at 23-26; Mem. in Support of Default Judgment at 8 (ct. doc. 20). A. Actual Loss or Injury Under the Carmack Amendment, a carrier is liable to the person entitled to recover under the receipt or bill of lading and an injured party is entitled to recover the actual loss or injury to the property caused by [a carrier s unreasonable delay or loss of the shipment]. 49 U.S.C (a)(1). Generally, actual loss is measured as the difference between the sound market value and the value as damaged at destination. Jessica Howard Ltd. v. Norfolk Southern R.R. Co., 316 F.3d 165, 168 (2d Cir. 2003). An appropriate measure of damages is the invoice value of the fruit minus its salvage value. See Am. Pacific Enters., LLC v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55236, 2006 WL , at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) New Son Yeng has shown it paid $34,560 for the lychee but was able to sell the lychee only at a
4 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40863, *7 Page 4 of 6 distressed price of $6, See ct. docs. 19-6; Therefore, it has shown it suffered a loss in the amount of $28, Plaintiff also seeks to recover a 20 percent handling [*8] fee of $1,296, including approximately $275 for the inspection performed to determine the loss. See Mem. in Support of Default Judgment at 3. Courts often look to the federal common law of damages when considering the propriety of damage remedies under the Carmack Amendment. See Project Hope v. M/V IBN SINA, 250 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2001); Hector Martinez & Co. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 606 F.2d 106, 108 (5th Cir. 1979) ( [the Carmack Amendment] incorporates common law principles for damages ). An injured party may recover incidental damages if those damages were foreseeable and within the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made. See, e.g., Gourmet Boutique, LLC v. Global Exp., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72144, 2012 WL , at *3 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (recovery of costs for destruction of unsalvageable food); American Pac. Enters., LLC v. Celadon Trucking Servs., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55236, 2009 WL , at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); Project Hope v. M/V IBN SINA, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27093, 2001 WL , at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), rev d on other grounds, 250 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2001). The Second Circuit has recognized that [r]elief available [under the Carmack statute] includes all damages resulting from any failure to discharge a carrier s duty with respect to any part of the transportation to the agreed destination. Windows, Inc., 177 F.3d at 118 (citing Southeastern Express Co. v. Pastime Amusement Co., 299 U.S. 28, 29, 57 S. Ct. 73, 81 L. Ed. 20 (1936)). I recommend that the Court award the cost of inspecting the damaged shipment since an inspection is a foreseeable cost within the contemplation of sophisticated actors in the shipping industry. See Am. Pac. Enters., LLC, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55236, 2006 WL , at *3 (awarding survey costs); Coast Citrus Distributors, Inc. v. M/V CSAV HAMBURGO, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29389, 2011 WL , at *15-*16 (S.D. Fla. 2011); but see Fireman s Fund Ins. Co. v. Never Stop Trucking, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95165, 2009 WL , at *3 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (holding that the Carmack Amendment does not provide for recovery of a surveying fee paid for investigating the cargo loss because the fee is not an allowable [*9] cost under 28 U.S.C. 1920). As United One is in the business of shipping fresh produce, it is clearly foreseeable to United One that New Son Yeng would request an inspection to assess the scope of the apparent damage to the fruit due to the delayed delivery. Given their admissibility, courts determining disputes over perishable produce have relied on the results of the USDA inspection reports. See Koam Produce, Inc. v. Dimare Homestead, Inc., 329 F.3d 123, 128 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting 7 U.S.C. 499n(a) that inspection certificates... are prima-facie evidence of the truth of the statements therein contained ); DiMare Homestead, Inc. v. Alphas Co. of New York, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48546, 2012 WL , at *17 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (accepting results of two inspections and awarding costs); Taylor & Fulton Packing, LLC v. Marco Int l Foods, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS , 2011 WL , at *6-*7 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (accepting evidence that produce passed inspection). Because the inspection expense is foreseeable and plaintiff has provided adequate documentation of those expenses, I recommend that plaintiff be awarded $ Ct. Doc (Invoices for USDA Inspection). In addition to the inspection fee, plaintiff seeks a 20 percent handling fee without submitting any explanation or supporting evidence for its request. Absent any basis for an award of such a fee, I recommend that plaintiff s request be denied, except for $ [*10] paid for the two USDA inspections. 2 Although plaintiff requested $275 in its complaint, the actual cost of the two inspections is $
5 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40863, *10 Page 5 of 6 B. Costs Plaintiff requests reimbursement of the court filing fee. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) provides that unless a federal statute... provides otherwise, costs--other than attorney s fees--should be allowed to the prevailing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Since the Carmack Amendment does not disallow the recovery, plaintiff is therefore entitled to be awarded $400, the cost of filing this action. C. Interest Plaintiff also requests prejudgment interest at 1% per annum from May 31, 2013 to July 22, 2014, which amounts to $ See Mem. in Support of Default Judgment at 8. In a Carmack Amendment case, [t]he decision to grant interest and the rate used is a matter confided to the district court s broad discretion. Fireman s Fund Ins. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95165, 2009 WL , at *3 (citing Endico Potatoes, Inc. v. CIT Grp./Factoring, Inc., 67 F.3d 1063, 1071 (2d Cir. 1995)). When granting interest, courts must be careful that an award of interest does not overcompensate a plaintiff. Id. (citing Am. Nat l Fire Ins. Co. v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 325 F.3d 924, (7th Cir. 2003)). The award of prejudgment interest is appropriate in this action to ensure that the injured plaintiff is fully compensated for its loss. See Fireman s Fund Ins. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95165, 2009 WL , at *3 (awarding prejudgment interest under the Carmack Amendment); Atl. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Napa Transp., Inc., 399 F. Supp. 2d 523, (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citing City of Milwaukee v. Cement Div., Nat. Gypsum Co., 515 U.S. 189, 195, 115 S. Ct. 2091, 132 L. Ed. 2d 148 (1995)) (granting recovery of prejudgment interest under the Carmack Amendment). Courts within this Circuit generally find the date of expected delivery the appropriate commencement date for the calculation of interest. See Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., 399 F. Supp. 2d at ; Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. S/S Robert E. Lee, 756 F. Supp. 757, 759 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). However, [*11] it is within a district court s discretion to set a later date. See Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., 399 F. Supp. 2d at 526 n.3 (citing Indep. Bulk Trans., Inc. v. Vessel Morania Abaco, 676 F.2d 23, 26 (2d Cir. 1982)). In this case, the expected delivery date was May 28, 2013 and the actual delivery date was May 31, Plaintiff suggests an accrual date of May 31, 2013, the date of actual delivery. See Mem. in Support of Default Judgment at 8. The Court finds that this is an appropriate start date for the computation of prejudgment interest. The interest rate applicable for prejudgment interest is also left to the discretion of the district court. See N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Tradeline (L.L.C.), 266 F.3d 112, (2d Cir. 2001). A number of courts in this Circuit have used the rate provided by 28 U.S.C. 1961, which calculates interest based on the one-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, compounded annually. 28 U.S.C. 1961; see e.g., N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co., 266 F.3d at ; Chandler v. Bombardier Capital, 44 F.3d 80, 84 (2d. Cir. 1994); Fireman s Fund Ins. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95165, 2009 WL , at *4; Atl. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Napa Transp., Inc., 399 F. Supp. 2d at 527. The average monthly yield on those Treasury securities from May 31, 2013 through March 31, 2015 is approximately 0.13%. See t-maturity-treasury/. Thus, I recommend that interest be awarded in the amount of $67.65 through March 31, 2015 and at the rate of $0.10 per day thereafter until the entry of default judgment. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully recommend that this Court award plaintiff
6 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40863, *11 Page 6 of 6 $28, [*12] in damages, $400 in costs, and prejudgment interest of $67.65 through March 31, 2015 and at a daily rate of $0.10 thereafter until entry of judgment. This report and recommendation will be filed electronically and a copy sent by mail to the defendant on this date. Any objections to the Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court, with a copy to Judge Block, by March 26, Failure to file objections within the time specified waives the right to appeal. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). SO ORDERED. Dated: Brooklyn, New York March 9, 2015 /s/ MARILYN D. GO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case 4:16-cv-03041 Document 138 Filed in TXSD on 03/22/18 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION United States District Court Southern District
More informationCase 1:16-cv LTS Document 62 Filed 08/29/18 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:16-cv-03462-LTS Document 62 Filed 08/29/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------x AMERICAN TUGS, INCORPORATED,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2001 CIRCLE REDMONT, INC., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D00-3354 MERCER TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., ETC., Appellee. / Opinion
More informationMuzi v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc.
Muzi v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc. United States District Court for the District of Nebraska March 18, 2015, Decided; March 18, 2015, Filed 8:14CV267 Reporter 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33542 FLORENCE MUZI, Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
Case 4:15-cv-00510-CWD Document 26 Filed 03/01/16 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO IDAHO PACIFIC CORPORATION, an Idaho corporation, v. Plaintiff, BINEX LINE CORPORATION,
More informationPage 1 of 7 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19811, * BNSF LOGISTICS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. L&N EXPRESS, INC., Defendant. No. C 11-5810-PJH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2012 U.S.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
F.C. Franchising Systems, Inc. v. Wayne Thomas Schweizer et al Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION F.C. FRANCHISING SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, Case No. 1:11-cv-740
More informationCase: 1:16-cv CAB Doc #: 26 Filed: 11/14/17 1 of 7. PageID #: 316 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 1:16-cv-02739-CAB Doc #: 26 Filed: 11/14/17 1 of 7. PageID #: 316 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION TOWNE AUTO SALES, LLC, CASE NO. 1:16-cv-02739 Plaintiff,
More informationCase 1:16-cv MGC Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2016 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:16-cv-20960-MGC Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2016 Page 1 of 6 MULTISPORTS USA, a Florida corporation, Plaintiff, vs. THEHUT.COM LIMITED, a foreign company, and MAMA MIO US, INC., a Delaware
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
800 Degrees LLC v. 800 Degrees Pizza LLC Doc. 15 Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge Wendy K. Hernandez Not Present n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No. Attorneys
More informationCase 6:14-cv CEM-TBS Document 31 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1331
Case 6:14-cv-01400-CEM-TBS Document 31 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1331 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., MARRIOTT VACATIONS
More informationPlaintiff United States of America ( plaintiff ) commenced this action seeking payment for the indebtedness of
United States of America v. Jaquez Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------- X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, NOT FOR PUBLICATION -against-
More informationX : : : : : : : : : : : : : : X. Plaintiff,
Menlo v. Friends of Tzeirei Chabad in Israel, Inc. Doc. 71 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK MENLO, -against-
More informationCase 8:12-cv NAM-RFT Document 11 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 9. Plaintiff, - v - Civ. No. 8: 12-CV-1584 (NAM/RFT) KARL PRYCE,
Case 8:12-cv-01584-NAM-RFT Document 11 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:06-CV-010-N ORDER
Case 3:06-cv-00010 Document 23 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION OWNER OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION. v. Case No. 2:09-CV-271 OPINION
Pioneer Surgical Technology, Inc. v. Vikingcraft Spine, Inc. et al Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION PIONEER SURGICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff,
More informationCase: 1:17-cv Document #: 31 Filed: 04/11/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:286
Case: 1:17-cv-07901 Document #: 31 Filed: 04/11/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:286 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Janis Fuller, individually and on
More informationCase 1:13-cv RML Document 53 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 778
Case 1:13-cv-02109-RML Document 53 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 778 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------X LUIS PEREZ,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Emerson Electric Co. v. Suzhou Cleva Electric Applicance Co., Ltd. et al Doc. 290 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 04-2551 CHICAGO PRIME PACKERS, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellee, NORTHAM FOOD TRADING CO., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States
More informationINTRODUCTION. Plaintiff Crazy Dog T-Shirts, Inc. ( Plaintiff ) initiated this action on December 11,
Crazy Dog T-Shirts, Inc. v. Design Factory Tees, Inc. et al Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CRAZY DOG T-SHIRTS, INC., v. Plaintiff, Case # 15-CV-6740-FPG DEFAULT JUDGMENT
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 1:08-cv SL Document 24 Filed 09/23/2008 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ) )
Case 1:08-cv-01113-SL Document 24 Filed 09/23/2008 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION DARREN BROWN, on behalf of himself CASE NO. 1:08 CV 1113 and all others
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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :0-cv-00-AG-RNB Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 DAVID HANSON and HANSON ROBOTICS, INC., v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiffs, AMERICA WEST AIRLINES, INC.;
More information: : : : : : : This action was commenced by Relator-Plaintiff Hon. William J. Rold ( Plaintiff ) on
United States of America et al v. Raff & Becker, LLP et al Doc. 111 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------- x UNITED STATES
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 138 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:2059
Case: 1:13-cv-01418 Document #: 138 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:2059 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LISLEWOOD CORPORATION, v. AT&T CORPORATION, AT&T
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Pending before the Court is the Partial Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Dogra et al v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA MELINDA BOOTH DOGRA, as Assignee of Claims of SUSAN HIROKO LILES; JAY DOGRA, as Assignee of the
More informationCIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL. Not Present. Not Present
Thomas Dipley v. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al Doc. 27 JS-5/ TITLE: Thomas Dipley v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., et al. ======================================================================== PRESENT:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-cab-blm Document 0 Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ABIGAIL TALLEY, a minor, through her mother ELIZABETH TALLEY, Plaintiff, vs. ERIC CHANSON et
More informationCase 1:17-cv JPO Document 25 Filed 01/02/19 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:17-cv-09785-JPO Document 25 Filed 01/02/19 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NEXTENGINE INC., -v- Plaintiff, NEXTENGINE, INC. and MARK S. KNIGHTON, Defendants.
More informationGCIU-Employer Retirement Fund et al v. All West Container Co., Docket No. 2:17-cv (C.D. Cal. Jun 27, 2017), Court Docket
GCIU-Employer Retirement Fund et al v. All West Container Co., Docket No. :-cv-0 (C.D. Cal. Jun, 0, Court Docket Multiple Documents Part Description pages Declaration of Judi Knore in Support of Motion
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION NO. 5:14-CV-17-BR
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION NO. 5:14-CV-17-BR JOHN T. MARTIN, v. Plaintiff, BIMBO FOODS BAKERIES DISTRIBUTION, INC.; f/k/a GEORGE WESTON BAKERIES
More informationCase 6:12-cv Document 1 Filed 09/14/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION
Case 6:12-cv-02427 Document 1 Filed 09/14/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION OPELOUSAS GENERAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY A PUBLIC TRUST,
More informationmg Doc 14 Filed 06/29/18 Entered 06/29/18 13:24:23 Main Document Pg 1 of 13
Pg 1 of 13 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: ADVANCE WATCH COMPANY, LTD., et al., Debtor. PETER KRAVITZ, as Creditor Trustee of the Creditor Trust of Advance Watch Company,
More informationCase 2:15-cv ADS-ARL Document 17 Filed 09/08/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 219
Case 2:15-cv-05688-ADS-ARL Document 17 Filed 09/08/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 219 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------X
More informationBlanco, Tackabery & Matamoros, P.A., by Peter J. Juran, for Plaintiff Progress Builders, LLC.
Progress Builders, LLC v. King, 2017 NCBC 40. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA MECKLENBURG COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 15 CVS 21379 PROGRESS BUILDERS, LLC, v. SHANNON KING, Plaintiff,
More informationMEMORANDUM AND ORDER 09-CV-1422 (RRM)(VVP) - against - Plaintiffs Thomas P. Kenny ( Kenny ) and Patricia D. Kenny bring this action for
Kenny et al v. The City of New York et al Doc. 67 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------X THOMAS P. KENNY and PATRICIA D.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
3:14-cv-00501-MBS Date Filed 12/03/15 Entry Number 70 Page 1 of 6 This case is being reviewed for possible publication by American Maritime Cases, Inc. ( AMC. If this case is published in AMC s book product
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello
-BNB Larrieu v. Best Buy Stores, L.P. Doc. 49 Civil Action No. 10-cv-01883-CMA-BNB GARY LARRIEU, v. Plaintiff, BEST BUY STORES, L.P., Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
Clemons v. Google, Inc. Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION RICHARD CLEMONS, v. GOOGLE INC., Plaintiff, Defendant. Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-00963-AJT-TCB
More informationCase 2:18-cv JHS Document 26 Filed 11/30/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:18-cv-01333-JHS Document 26 Filed 11/30/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ERIC SCALLA, v. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-1333 KWS, INC.,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION V. A-13-CA-359 LY
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. HRA Zone, L.L.C. et al Doc. 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC. V. A-13-CA-359 LY HRA ZONE, L.L.C.,
More informationPlaintiff, Defendant. Plaintiff Troy Cordell ( plaintiff ) brings this action against Unisys Corporation
Cordell v. Unisys Corporation Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TROY CORDELL, Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER 12-CV-6301L v. UNISYS CORPORATION, Defendant. Plaintiff Troy
More informationCase 1:14-cv ER Document 24 Filed 11/27/18 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:14-cv-05656-ER Document 24 Filed 11/27/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BAGADIYA BROTHERS PVT LIMITED, Petitioner, against CHURCHGATE NIGERIA LIMITED, OPINION
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:07-cv-491-RJC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Rowl v. Smith Debnam Narron Wyche Saintsing & Myers, LLP et al Doc. 49 PAULINE ROWL, vs. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:07-cv-491-RJC
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 informationCase 6:05-cv CJS-MWP Document 77 Filed 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 10
Case 6:05-cv-06344-CJS-MWP Document 77 Filed 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SCOTT E. WOODWORTH and LYNN M. WOODWORTH, v. Plaintiffs, REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
More informationCase 1:15-cv JMF Document 9 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:15-cv-04685-JMF Document 9 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : IN RE:
More informationCase 1:14-cv ARR-SMG Document 44 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 271
Case 114-cv-02505-ARR-SMG Document 44 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID # 271 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/02/ :08 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK DEMOND MOORE and MICHAEL KIMMELMAN, P.C. v. Plaintiffs, CIOX HEALTH LLC and NYU HOSPITALS CENTER, Defendants. Index No. 655060/2016 ASSIGNED JUDGE
More informationCase3:13-cv SI Document39 Filed11/18/13 Page1 of 8
Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed// Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 STEVEN POLNICKY, v. Plaintiff, LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON; WELLS FARGO
More informationCase 3:04-cv MLC-TJB Document 71 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 3:04-cv-02593-MLC-TJB Document 71 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 1 of 11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : ASCH WEBHOSTING, INC., : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-2593 (MLC)
More informationFORMATION OF CONTRACT INTENTION TO BE BOUND (ART. 14 CISG) - RELEVANCE OF PRACTICES BETWEEN THE PARTIES (ART. 8(2) & (3) CISG)
FORMATION OF CONTRACT INTENTION TO BE BOUND (ART. 14 CISG) - RELEVANCE OF PRACTICES BETWEEN THE PARTIES (ART. 8(2) & (3) CISG) CHOICE-OF-LAW CLAUSE - AMOUNTING TO TERM MATERIALLY ALTERING ORIGINAL OFFER
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-HUCK/TURNOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 05-21276-CIV-HUCK/TURNOFF JOEL MARTINEZ, v. Plaintiff, [Defendant A], a/k/a [Defendant A] and [Defendant B] Defendants. / DEFENDANTS MOTION
More information2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS , *
FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE CO., as subrogee of ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, vs. RECKART LOGISTICS, INC., S&G TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., and MR. BULT'S, INC., alk/a MBI, Defendants. MR. BULT's, INC.,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION AMANDA TAYLOR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:18-cv-701 ) VITAMIN COTTAGE NATURAL ) FOOD MARKETS, INC. a/k/a
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CV-HURLEY/HOPKINS ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Houston v. South Bay Investors #101 LLC Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 13-80193-CV-HURLEY/HOPKINS JOE HOUSTON, v. Plaintiff, SOUTH BAY INVESTORS #101, LLC, Defendant.
More informationCase: 4:16-cv ERW Doc. #: 105 Filed: 05/15/18 Page: 1 of 10 PageID #: 915
Case: 4:16-cv-01138-ERW Doc. #: 105 Filed: 05/15/18 Page: 1 of 10 PageID #: 915 MARILYNN MARTINEZ, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION v. Plaintiffs, Consolidated
More informationCase 1:16-cv RMB Document 16 Filed 04/21/16 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:16-cv-01818-RMB Document 16 Filed 04/21/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------)( JENLOR INTERNATIONAL
More information6:13-cv MGL Date Filed 02/21/14 Entry Number 32 Page 1 of 10
6:13-cv-00257-MGL Date Filed 02/21/14 Entry Number 32 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Gregory Somers, ) Case No. 6:13-cv-00257-MGL-JDA
More informationMEMORANDUM AND ORDER - versus - 14-cv Plaintiff, Defendant.
Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC v. Slomin's, Inc. Doc. 32 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR ONLINE PUBLICATION JOAO CONTROL AND MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC., SLOMIN
More informationCase 3:14-cv VAB Document 62 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 3:14-cv-01714-VAB Document 62 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 11 PAUL T. EDWARDS, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT v. CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1714 (VAB) NORTH AMERICAN POWER AND GAS,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-HUCK/BANDSTRA ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Matienzo v. Mirage Yacht, LLC Doc. 75 MANUEL L. MATIENZO, vs. Plaintiff, MIRAGE YACHT, LLC, Defendant. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 10-22024-CIV-HUCK/BANDSTRA ORDER
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 17-3266 American Family Mutual Insurance Company lllllllllllllllllllllplaintiff - Appellee v. Vein Centers for Excellence, Inc. llllllllllllllllllllldefendant
More informationCase 1:15-cv JPO Document 28 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 10 : : : : : : Plaintiffs, : Defendant. :
Case 115-cv-10000-JPO Document 28 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------X TRUSTEES FOR THE
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, 2012
1-1-cv Bakoss v. Lloyds of London 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 01 (Submitted On: October, 01 Decided: January, 01) Docket No. -1-cv M.D.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE
MARGIOTTI v. SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA Doc. 18 NOT FOR PUBLICATION (Doc. No. 17) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE GERARD MARGIOTTI Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-60698 Document: 00514652277 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant Appellee, United States
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 1:05-cv WMS Document 7 Filed 02/22/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:05-cv-00251-WMS Document 7 Filed 02/22/2006 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RICHARD P. BORDEN, Plaintiff, v. DECISION AND ORDER 05-CV-251S BLUE CROSS AND BLUE
More information.. :P~TEFILED:?l~llf?
. ' Case 1:15-cv-08157-AKH Document 91 Filed 08/31/17 Page 1 of 7,, USDC SONY..:!/ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------
More informationCase 2:16-cv AJS Document 125 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:16-cv-01375-AJS Document 125 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LISA GATHERS, et al., 16cv1375 v. Plaintiffs, LEAD CASE NEW YORK
More informationCase 1:12-cv SLT-VVP Document 23 Filed 03/31/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 306. Plaintiffs, 12-CV-1428 (SLT)(VVP)
Case 1:12-cv-01428-SLT-VVP Document 23 Filed 03/31/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 306 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. No. 5:14-CV-133-FL ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:14-CV-133-FL TIMOTHY DANEHY, Plaintiff, TIME WARNER CABLE ENTERPRISE LLC, v. Defendant. ORDER This
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LINDA PERRYMENT, Plaintiff, v. SKY CHEFS, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-kaw ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PARTIALLY DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S
More informationCase 2:12-cv Document 210 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 33896
Case 2:12-cv-03655 Document 210 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 33896 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION DONNA KAISER, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION IN ADMIRALTY NO: 4:16-CV BR
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION IN ADMIRALTY NO: 4:16-CV-00021-BR IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT ) OF TRAWLER SUSAN ROSE, INC. AS ) OWNER OF THE
More informationJUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Division I Opinion by: JUDGE MÁRQUEZ Dailey and Román, JJ., concur. Announced: April 6, 2006
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 04CA2306 Pueblo County District Court No. 03CV893 Honorable David A. Cole, Judge Jessica R. Castillo, Plaintiff Appellant, v. The Chief Alternative, LLC,
More informationYohan Choi v. ABF Freight System Inc
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-13-2016 Yohan Choi v. ABF Freight System Inc Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationORIGINAL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA DUBLIN DIVISION ORDER
Deere & Company v. Rebel Auction Company, Inc. et al Doc. 27 ORIGINAL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA DUBLIN DIVISION U.S. DISTRICT S AUGytSTASIV. 2016 JUN-3 PM3:ol
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION
RD Rod, LLC et al v. Montana Classic Cars, LLC Doc. 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION RD ROD, LLC, as Successor in Interest to GRAND BANK, and RONALD
More informationM. Slavin & Sons, LTD v Penny Port, LLC 2013 NY Slip Op 32054(U) August 29, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2012 Judge:
M. Slavin & Sons, LTD v Penny Port, LLC 2013 NY Slip Op 32054(U) August 29, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 157502/2012 Judge: Eileen A. Rakower Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More informationCase 7:06-cv TJM-GJD Document 15 Filed 02/20/2007 Page 1 of 10. Plaintiff, Defendants. DECISION & ORDER
Case 7:06-cv-01289-TJM-GJD Document 15 Filed 02/20/2007 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PAUL BOUSHIE, Plaintiff, -against- 06-CV-1289 U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICE,
More informationCase 4:13-cv RC-ALM Document 49 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 960
Case 4:13-cv-00416-RC-ALM Document 49 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 960 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, -- against
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-COHN/SELTZER
Tara Productions, Inc. v. Hollywood Gadgets, Inc. et al Doc. 205 TARA PRODUCTIONS, INC., vs. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 09-61436-CIV-COHN/SELTZER HOLLYWOOD
More informationREPORT, RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER. This case was referred to the undersigned by the Hon. Richard J. Arcara,
Nixon v. Cole-Hoover et al Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KENNETH NIXON v. Plaintiff, 09-CV-0237A(Sr) GWENDOLYN COLE-HOOVER and ANDREA COLE-CAMEL Defendants. REPORT,
More informationCase 1:17-cv DPG Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2018 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:17-cv-20713-DPG Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2018 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 17-cv-20713-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES RICHARD KURZBAN, v. Plaintiff,
More informationCase 3:15-cv RS Document 127 Filed 12/18/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-rs Document Filed // Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE ANTITRUST LITIGATION Case No.0-md-0-RS Individual
More informationFiled 01/04/2008 Page 1 of 9. Case 1:05-cv GEL Document 451. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x. 05 Civ.
Case 1:05-cv-08626-GEL Document 451 Filed 01/04/2008 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x In re REFCO, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION 05 Civ. 8626 (GEL) ---------------------
More informationCase 1:15-cv RJS Document 20 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:15-cv-09262-RJS Document 20 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, -v- L-3 COMMUNICATIONS EOTECH, INC., L-3 COMMUNICATIONS
More informationCase: 1:16-cv Document #: 21 Filed: 03/27/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:84
Case: 1:16-cv-04522 Document #: 21 Filed: 03/27/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:84 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LISA SKINNER, Plaintiff, v. Case No.
More informationUnited States District Court
Case :0-cv-0-WHA Document Filed 0//00 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, v. Plaintiff, DENISE RICKETTS,
More informationLEXSEE 587 F.3D 127. Docket No cv UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Page 1 LEXSEE 587 F.3D 127 HAWKNET, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OVERSEAS SHIPPING AGENCIES, OVERSEAS WORLDWIDE HOLDING GROUP, HOMAY GENERAL TRADING CO., LLC, MAJDPOUR BROS. CUSTOMS CLEARANCE, MAJDPOUR
More informationJ S - 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. CASE NO. CV JST (FMOx) GLOBAL DÉCOR, INC. and THOMAS H. WOLF.
Case :-cv-00-jls-fmo Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0 GLOBAL DÉCOR, INC. and THOMAS H. WOLF vs. Plaintiffs, THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL
More informationCase 0:17-cv JJO Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2018 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:17-cv-60471-JJO Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2018 Page 1 of 10 GRIFFEN LEE, v. Plaintiff, CHARLES G. McCARTHY, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No.
More informationCase 1:12-cv CM Document 50 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:12-cv-04873-CM Document 50 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR TO WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., SUCCESSOR
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON. DAVID C. MCCARTY, et al., : Case No.
McCarty et al v. National Union Fire Insurance Company Of Pittsburgh, PA et al Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON DAVID C. MCCARTY, et al.,
More informationCase 1:12-cv WJM-KMT Document 64 Filed 09/05/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11
Case 1:12-cv-02663-WJM-KMT Document 64 Filed 09/05/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11 Civil Action No. 12-cv-2663-WJM-KMT STAN LEE MEDIA, INC., v. Plaintiff, THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, Defendant. IN THE UNITED
More informationCase No.: SC14-54 Lower Case Nos.: 4D ; CA036246XXXXM. Petitioner, Respondent.
Filing # 10614732 Electronically Filed 02/24/2014 03:05:22 PM RECEIVED, 2/24/2014 15:08:41, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No.: SC14-54 Lower Case Nos.: 4D12-1332;
More information