MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. arbitrable. Concluding that the arbitrator, not the court, should decide this issue, the court
|
|
- Marion Franklin
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 3:16-cv D Document 41 Filed 06/27/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID 623 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION A & C DISCOUNT PHARMACY, L.L.C. d/b/a MEDCORE PHARMACY, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-0264-D VS. CAREMARK, L.L.C., et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The instant motion to compel arbitration presents the question whether the court or the arbitrator should decide whether plaintiff s request for preliminary injunctive relief is arbitrable. Concluding that the arbitrator, not the court, should decide this issue, the court grants the motion to compel, stays this case, and directs that it be administratively closed for statistical purposes. I This is a removed action in which plaintiff A & C Discount Pharmacy LLC d/b/a Medcore Pharmacy ( A&C ) sues defendants CaremarkPCS, LLC and Caremark, LLC (collectively, Caremark ) for injunctive relief and declaratory relief. Caremark, a pharmacy benefits manager that administers the pharmacy benefits of its health plan clients, maintains networks of retail pharmacies at which health plan members can fill their prescriptions. When a patient fills a prescription at a retail pharmacy in the Caremark network, Caremark reimburses the pharmacy and then seeks repayment from its health plan client. A&C is a
2 Case 3:16-cv D Document 41 Filed 06/27/16 Page 2 of 14 PageID 624 retail pharmacy that is in Caremark s network. Among other things, A&C dispenses to its patients compounded medications, which are drugs that are prepared from individual ingredients by the dispensing pharmacy. Compounded medications are unlike most prescription medications that come in the form of a tablet, capsule, or other delivery mechanism that is finalized by the drug manufacturer and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the FDA ). A&C, like many compounding pharmacies, charges prices for its compounded medications that greatly exceed those for FDA-approved prescription medications. A&C s participation in Caremark s network is governed by a written contract between A&C and Caremark. In January 2015 A&C entered into a Provider Agreement with Caremark. The Provider Agreement expressly incorporates the Caremark Provider Manual, which is issued and routinely updated by Caremark through an agreed-upon amendment process. The parties agree that the 2016 Caremark Provider Manual ( Provider Manual ) governs their contractual relationship for purposes of this case. The parties relationship is also governed by an Addendum to the Caremark Provider Agreement ( Addendum ) that A&C signed in March In June 2015 A&C began submitting claims for complex compound pharmaceuticals to Caremark, which Caremark contends is a breach of the Addendum. The Addendum provides that Provider agrees, unless otherwise expressly authorized by Caremark in writing, that Provider is not permitted under the Provider Agreement to dispense complex compounds and shall not submit claims for complex compounds, and it further provides: - 2 -
3 Case 3:16-cv D Document 41 Filed 06/27/16 Page 3 of 14 PageID 625 Provider agrees that dispensing complex compounds are outside the scope of Provider s permitted Pharmacy Services and submission of claims to Caremark for complex compounds is therefore a breach of the Provider Agreement, subject to all available remedies Caremark may have under the Provider Agreement (which includes the Provider Manual) including but not limited to recoupment of the claims and termination of the Provider Agreement. D. App. 10. Caremark notified A&C of this breach by letters dated June 9 and August 17, It instructed A&C to immediately cease and desist submitting complex compound claims, acknowledge in writing that it would abide by the restriction against complex compound claims, and reverse the claims identified in the letters. A&C continued, however, to submit complex compound claims after these notifications. On October 7, 2015 Caremark sent A&C a written Notice of Termination, informing A&C that, due to its failure to follow submission guidelines, it would be terminated from the Caremark network on January 5, At A&C s request, Caremark later agreed not to terminate A&C from its network until January 29, One day before the extended termination date, A&C filed this suit in Texas state court, seeking a temporary restraining order ( TRO ) and temporary and permanent injunctive relief. The state court granted an ex parte TRO that restrained Caremark from terminating A&C s participation in its network. 1 The state court scheduled a temporary injunction hearing, but before the hearing was held, Caremark removed the case to this court. Judge 1 Caremark contends that, despite its request, it was not given notice of the TRO hearing, and that the state court that issued the TRO was not advised of the parties contractual agreement to arbitrate
4 Case 3:16-cv D Document 41 Filed 06/27/16 Page 4 of 14 PageID 626 Godbey, to whom the case was initially assigned, extended the TRO for 14 days. After the case was reassigned to the undersigned s docket, A&C filed a first amended complaint, application for TRO, and application for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. The court, finding that the state court TRO should not have been entered in the first place, permitted the TRO to expire, as scheduled, on February 25, 2016, and it denied as moot Caremark s motion to dissolve the TRO. A&C s requests for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief remain pending. Caremark now moves to compel arbitration, contending that the Provider Manual s arbitration clause ( Arbitration Agreement ) requires that all disputes between the parties be arbitrated, and that preliminary injunctive relief can only be sought in arbitration. 2 A&C opposes the motion. It maintains that, although the parties dispute is arbitrable, the American Arbitration Association Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures 2 The Arbitration Agreement states, in pertinent part: Any and all disputes between Provider and Caremark..., including but not limited to, disputes in connection with, arising out of, or relating in any way to, the Provider Agreement or to Provider s participation in one or more Caremark networks or exclusion from any Caremark networks, will be exclusively settled by arbitration. This arbitration provision applies to any dispute arising from events that occurred before, on or after the effective date of this Provider Manual. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties, the arbitration shall be administered by the American Arbitration Association ( AAA ) pursuant to the then applicable AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (available from the AAA)[.] D. App. 14 (parentheses in original)
5 Case 3:16-cv D Document 41 Filed 06/27/16 Page 5 of 14 PageID 627 ( AAA Rules ), which are incorporated into the Arbitration Agreement, permit it to seek preliminary injunctive relief in court. II Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act ( FAA ) provides that written agreements to arbitrate controversies arising out of an existing contract shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. 9 U.S.C. 2. The FAA leaves no place for the exercise of discretion by a district court, but instead mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218 (1985) (citing 9 U.S.C. 3-4) (emphasis in original). When considering a motion to compel arbitration, the court engages in a two-step process. First, the court determines whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute. Webb v. Investacorp, Inc., 89 F.3d 252, 258 (5th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (citation omitted). This determination involves two considerations: (1) whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties; and (2) whether the dispute in question falls within the scope of that arbitration agreement. Id. (citations omitted). Second, the court decides whether legal constraints external to the parties agreement foreclosed the arbitration of those claims. Id. (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 628 (1985)). If there is a valid agreement to arbitrate, and there are no legal constraints that foreclose arbitration, the court must order the parties to arbitrate their dispute. Celaya v. Am. Pinnacle Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 2013 WL , at *2 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2013) - 5 -
6 Case 3:16-cv D Document 41 Filed 06/27/16 Page 6 of 14 PageID 628 (Fitzwater, C.J.). III Application of the two-step process in this case is straightforward and undisputed. A&C and Caremark agree that the Provider Agreement is a valid contract between them, that the Provider Agreement expressly incorporates the Provider Manual, that the Provider Manual contains the Arbitration Agreement, and that the Arbitration Agreement is enforceable. The parties also agree that their dispute falls within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement. Accordingly, the court holds that the Arbitration Agreement constitutes an enforceable agreement to arbitrate and that the parties dispute falls within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement. Because the parties do not raise, and the court is unaware of, any legal constraints external to the Arbitration Agreement, the court need not address whether any such constraints foreclose arbitration of this dispute. IV The court now turns to A&C s application for preliminary injunctive relief. The sole issue is who as between the court and the arbitrator should decide A&C s request for preliminary injunctive relief when the court has determined that all of A&C s claims must be sent to arbitration. A The Arbitration Agreement provides, in pertinent part, that [t]he above notwithstanding, nothing in this provision shall prevent either party from utilizing the AAA s - 6 -
7 Case 3:16-cv D Document 41 Filed 06/27/16 Page 7 of 14 PageID 629 procedures for emergency relief to seek preliminary injunctive relief to halt or prevent a breach of this Provider Agreement. D. App. 15. The parties agree that the AAA Rules govern A&C s request for preliminary injunctive relief, but they disagree about which specific AAA Rule governs, as well as about the interpretation of the applicable AAA Rules. A&C maintains that Rule 37(c), 3 which addresses interim measures, and Rule 38(h), 4 which addresses emergency measures of protection, permit it to submit a request for injunctive relief to a court. A&C further maintains that the majority of federal circuit courts have held that a district court can issue injunctive relief to preserve the status quo pending arbitration, and that the Fifth Circuit, in Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585 (5th Cir. 2011), held that a district court can issue injunctive relief to protect the status quo pending resolution of a motion to compel arbitration. Caremark maintains that the Arbitration Agreement, by stating that the parties may 3 Rule 37(c) provides: A request for interim measures addressed by a party to a judicial authority shall not be deemed incompatible with the agreement to arbitrate or a waiver of the right to arbitrate. 4 Rule 38(h) provides: A request for interim measures addressed by a party to a judicial authority shall not be deemed incompatible with this rule, the agreement to arbitrate or a waiver of the right to arbitrate. If the AAA is directed by a judicial authority to nominate a special master to consider and report on an application for emergency relief, the AAA shall proceed as provided in this rule and the references to the emergency arbitrator shall be read to mean the special master, except that the special master shall issue a report rather than an interim award
8 Case 3:16-cv D Document 41 Filed 06/27/16 Page 8 of 14 PageID 630 utiliz[e] the AAA s procedures for emergency relief to seek preliminary injunctive relief, clearly refers to Rule 38 and its procedures for obtaining emergency relief. And it posits that A&C s situation is directly addressed by Rule 38(b). 5 Caremark also asserts that, under Rule 38(a), 6 Rule 38 is mandatory because the Arbitration Agreement does not contain any provision that would invalidate Rule 38, and that A&C has not identified any other agreement that would in any way alter Rule 38. Caremark also posits that the AAA Rules relied on by A&C do not authorize a party to seek preliminary injunctive relief from a court and do not provide procedures for doing so. Rather, Caremark argues that Rules 37(c) and 38(h) preserve the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by stating that no request to a judicial tribunal will be deemed a waiver of the right to arbitrate. Alternatively, Caremark maintains that the AAA Rules explicitly reserve to the arbitrator, not the court, the power to decide the correct interpretation of the AAA Rules and 5 Rule 38(b) provides: A party in need of emergency relief prior to the constitution of the panel shall notify the AAA and all other parties in writing of the nature of the relief sought and the reasons why such relief is required on an emergency basis. The application shall also set forth the reasons why the party is entitled to such relief. Such notice may be given by facsimile or or other reliable means, but must include a statement certifying that all other parties have been notified or an explanation of the steps taken in good faith to notify other parties. 6 Rule 38(a) provides: Unless the parties agree otherwise, the provisions of this rule shall apply to arbitrations conducted under arbitration clauses or agreements entered on or after October 1,
9 Case 3:16-cv D Document 41 Filed 06/27/16 Page 9 of 14 PageID 631 the appropriate jurisdiction of the arbitrator. Caremark relies on Rule 7(a), which provides: The arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, and Rule 8, which provides: The arbitrator shall interpret and apply these rules insofar as they relate to the arbitrator s powers and duties[.] B The court declines to rule on A&C s application for preliminary injunctive relief. The case relied on by A&C, Janvey, 647 F.3d 585, is inapposite. In Janvey the Fifth Circuit held that a district court can rule on a motion for preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo while a motion to compel arbitration is pending. Id. at 595. It did not address the present situation where the court has already decided that the case is arbitrable. The Janvey panel acknowledged the circuit split concerning whether the [FAA] require[s] that a federal court immediately divest itself of any power to act to maintain the status quo once it decides that the case before it is arbitrable. Id. at 594 (emphasis in original) (quoting RGI, Inc. v. Tucker & Assocs., Inc., 858 F.2d 227, (5th Cir. 1988) (acknowledging, but not entering, the circuit split)). 7 But Janvey did not enter the circuit split. See id. at 595 n.7 7 The court in Amegy Bank National Ass n v. Monarch Flight II, LLC, 870 F.Supp.2d 441 (S.D. Tex. 2012), explained the circuit split: Most circuits that have addressed the issue have held that a district court may enter injunctive relief to preserve the status quo pending arbitration. See, e.g., Blumenthal v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 910 F.2d 1049, 1052 (2d Cir. 1990); Ortho Pharm. Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 882 F.2d 806, 812 (3d Cir. 1989); Teradyne, Inc. v. Mostek Corp., 797 F.2d 43, 51 (1st Cir. 1986); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v
10 Case 3:16-cv D Document 41 Filed 06/27/16 Page 10 of 14 PageID 632 ( [W]e reserve for another day the issues of whether a district court divests itself of the discretion to maintain the status quo once it decides the case before it is arbitrable and, if not, what the limits of that discretion may be. ). The court in Grasso Enterprises, LLC v. CVS Health Corp., 143 F.Supp.3d 530 (W.D. Tex. 2015), addressed a situation similar to the present case. The Grasso court first determined that the parties had agreed to arbitrate their dispute. In doing so, it held that the arbitration clause in the Provider Manual, which was incorporated into the Provider Agreement, constituted an agreement to arbitrate. Id. at And it concluded that the parties dispute fell within the scope of that agreement because the parties, by incorporating the AAA Rules into the arbitration clause, agreed to arbitrate arbitrability. Id. at 540 (citing Crawford Prof l Drugs, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 748 F.3d 249, 262 (5th Cir. 2014); Petrofac, Inc. v. DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Co., 687 F.3d 671, 675 (5th Cir. Id. at Bradley, 756 F.2d 1048, (4th Cir. 1985). These courts have explained that [a]rbitration can become a hollow formality if parties are able to alter irreversibly the status quo before the arbitrators are able to render a decision in the dispute. Blumenthal, 910 F.2d at 1053 (citations omitted). Only the Eighth Circuit reached a different result. It has held that because the judicial inquiry requisite to determine the propriety of injunctive relief necessarily would inject the court into the merits of issues more appropriately left to the arbitrator, a district court errs in granting injunctive relief in the absence of qualifying contractual language providing for or contemplating the injunctive relief sought. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Hovey, 726 F.2d 1286, 1292 (8th Cir. 1984)
11 Case 3:16-cv D Document 41 Filed 06/27/16 Page 11 of 14 PageID )). The Grasso court also concluded that no legal constraints rendered the dispute nonarbitrable. Id. at 542. The Grasso court then turned to the plaintiff s motion for preliminary injunction, and it considered whether the following clause in the arbitration agreement allowed the parties to seek injunctive relief outside of arbitration: The above notwithstanding, nothing in this provision shall prevent either party from seeking preliminary injunctive relief to halt or prevent a breach of this Provider Agreement in any state or federal court of law. Id at 543. As an initial matter, the court explained that there is no case that would require this Court to issue a ruling on the preliminary injunction motion even though it has ordered the case proceed in arbitration. Id. The Grasso court declined to rule on the preliminary injunction motion, reasoning that the judicial inquiry requisite to determine the propriety of injunctive relief necessarily would inject the court into the merits of issues more appropriately left to the arbitrator. Id. (quoting Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Hovey, 726 F.2d 1286, 1292 (8th Cir. 1984)). It also reasoned that, because the parties, by incorporating the AAA Rules into their arbitration agreement, had agreed to arbitrate arbitrability, an arbitrator, not this Court, [must] decide whether the issue that underlies the claim for preliminary injunctive relief is within the scope of the arbitration agreement or is covered by the exception. Id. (citing Crawford, 748 F.3d at 262; Petrofac, 687 F.3d at 675). The court in RX Pros, Inc. v. CVS Health Corp., 2016 WL (W.D. La. Jan. 26, 2016), also addressed a similar issue. In RX Pros the parties agreed that the arbitration agreement governed their underlying dispute, and the only issues before the court were
12 Case 3:16-cv D Document 41 Filed 06/27/16 Page 12 of 14 PageID 634 whether the state court had authority to enter the TRO in the first place, and if not, whether the court had authority to dissolve the TRO before compelling arbitration. Id. at *2. And the court addressed a provision in an arbitration clause identical to the one at issue in the present case: The above notwithstanding, nothing in this provision shall prevent either party from utilizing the AAA s procedures for emergency relief to seek preliminary injunctive relief to halt or prevent a breach of this Provider Agreement. Id. at *2 n.2. The RX Pros court held that the state court improperly granted the TRO, and it dissolved the state court TRO. Id. at *3-4. In doing so, the court explained: Id. at *3. Under the clear language of the 2016 Provider Manual, this question was for the arbitrator to decide. See Crawford, 748 F.3d at In Crawford, the court held that express incorporation of the rules of the arbitration service constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties have agreed to arbitrate arbitrability. Id. Then, the court noted that the arbitration clause in the 2014 Provider Manual incorporated the rules of the AAA. According to the Fifth Circuit, incorporation of those rules constituted clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability. Id. The 2016 Provider Manual contains the same express incorporation of the rules of the arbitration service that the Fifth Circuit held constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability. Therefore, when faced with the Petition for a TRO, the state court should have referred the matter to arbitration. See Grasso, 2015 WL at *12 (construing 2014 Provider Manual and finding that arbitrator should determine whether exception allowing party to file for injunctive relief in federal or state court applied). In the present case, the court need not enter the circuit split and decide whether it can
13 Case 3:16-cv D Document 41 Filed 06/27/16 Page 13 of 14 PageID 635 consider a request for preliminary injunctive relief after it has decided that the case is arbitrable. This is so because both parties agree that the AAA Rules are incorporated into the Arbitration Agreement, 8 and the express incorporation of the AAA Rules into the Arbitration Agreement constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability. Crawford, 748 F.3d at (citing Petrofac, 687 F.3d at 675). As in Grasso and RX Pros, because the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability, the arbitrator, not the court, should rule on who has the primary power to decide whether A&C s request for preliminary injunctive relief is arbitrable. Cf. Petrofac, 687 F.3d at 675 (citing First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943 (1995)) ( Just as the arbitrability of the merits of a dispute depends upon whether the parties agreed to arbitrate that dispute, so the question who has the primary power to decide arbitrability turns upon what the parties agreed about that matter. ) (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, the court declines to rule on A&C s request for preliminary injunctive relief. 8 The Arbitration Agreement states, in pertinent part: Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties, the arbitration shall be administered by the American Arbitration Association ( AAA ) pursuant to the then applicable AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (available from the AAA). D. App. 14 (parentheses in original)
14 Case 3:16-cv D Document 41 Filed 06/27/16 Page 14 of 14 PageID 636 * * * For the reasons explained, Caremark s motion to compel arbitration is granted. The court stays this case and directs that it be administratively closed for statistical purposes. SO ORDERED. June 27, SIDNEY A. FITZWATER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:16-cv L Document 9 Filed 10/27/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID 48 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:16-cv-02430-L Document 9 Filed 10/27/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID 48 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SHEBA COWSETTE, Plaintiff, V. No. 3:16-cv-2430-L FEDERAL
Case 4:17-cv Document 10 Filed in TXSD on 04/13/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Case 4:17-cv-01044 Document 10 Filed in TXSD on 04/13/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION GEMINI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, VS. CIVIL ACTION NO.
Case 4:16-cv Y Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID 678
Case 4:16-cv-00810-Y Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID 678 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION 20/20 COMMUNICATIONS, INC. VS. Civil No.
ORDER. of Am. Compi. [#3] J In order to use this service, Plaintiff agreed to Defendants' Background
Case 1:16-cv-01058-SS Document 30 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION '3 iih:39 YVETTE HOBZEK, individually and on behalf of
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-41674 Document: 00514283638 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ARCHER AND WHITE SALES, INC., United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION
Case 7:03-cv-00102-D Document 858 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID 23956 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION VICTORIA KLEIN, et al., Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiff, Defendants.
CASE 0:17-cv-05009-JRT-FLN Document 123 Filed 02/27/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA MANAGEMENT REGISTRY, INC., v. Plaintiff, A.W. COMPANIES, INC., ALLAN K. BROWN, WENDY
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 7:15-cv LSC.
Case: 16-14519 Date Filed: 02/27/2017 Page: 1 of 13 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-14519 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 7:15-cv-02350-LSC
Company's ("North American") "Motion to Compel Arbitration and Brief in Support" (ECF No.
Case 3:16-cv-00376-DCG Document 23 Filed 06/20/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION SENTRY SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, ~ CHRISTIAN ULISES RUIZ;
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:15-cv-01180-D Document 25 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ASHLEY SLATTEN, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Case No. CIV-15-1180-D
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Case 1:10-cv-00277-LY Document 3-7 Filed 04/30/10 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION MEDICUS INSURANCE CO., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:10-cv-00277-LY
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DXP Enterprises, Inc. v. Goulds Pumps, Inc. Doc. 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION DXP ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-1112
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case No. -cv-0-blf 0 ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, et al., v. Plaintiffs, INTERDIGITAL, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER ()
Case 1:17-cv NT Document 17 Filed 05/14/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 61 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:17-cv-00422-NT Document 17 Filed 05/14/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 61 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE EMMA CEDER, V. Plaintiff, SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., Defendant. Docket
Case 4:16-cv ALM-CAN Document 55 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 412
Case 4:16-cv-00703-ALM-CAN Document 55 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 412 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION DALLAS LOCKETT AND MICHELLE LOCKETT,
Case 0:18-cv UU Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2018 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:18-cv-60530-UU Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2018 Page 1 of 5 ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, et al., v. Plaintiffs, UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Diskriter, Inc. v. Alecto Healthcare Services Ohio Valley LLC et al Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA DISKRITER, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN BRETT DANIELS and BRETT DANIELS PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 15-CV-1334 SIMON PAINTER, TIMOTHY LAWSON, INTERNATIONAL SPECIAL ATTRACTIONS,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT WINCHESTER MEMORANDUM OPINION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT WINCHESTER DAVID HARRIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:14-CV-0046 ) Phillips/Lee TD AMERITRADE, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant
Credit Suisse First Boston, LLC. v. Padilla, 326 F. Supp. 2d US: Dist. Court, SD New York 2004
Credit Suisse First Boston, LLC. v. Padilla, 326 F. Supp. 2d 508 - US: Dist. Court, SD New York 2004 326 F.Supp.2d 508 (2004) CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON, LLC; Casa De Bolsa Credit Suisse First Boston (Mexico),
Seeking Emergent Relief Pending A Mandatory Arbitration Subject To The Federal Arbitration Act
American Bar Association Forum on the Construction Industry Seeking Emergent Relief Pending A Mandatory Arbitration Subject To The Federal Arbitration Act Joel B. Rosen, Esq. Fabiana Pierre-Louis, Esq.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Alvarado v. Lowes Home Centers, LLC Doc. United States District Court UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 JAZMIN ALVARADO, Plaintiff, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:17-cv-00411-R Document 17 Filed 06/20/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA OPTIMUM LABORATORY ) SERVICES LLC, an Oklahoma ) limited liability
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No.
Case: 15-12066 Date Filed: 11/16/2015 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-12066 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-01397-SCJ
Case 1:16-cv RP Document 13 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:16-cv-00044-RP Document 13 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION BECKY GOAD, Plaintiff, V. 1-16-CV-044 RP ST. DAVID S HEALTHCARE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 YANA ZELKIND, Plaintiff, v. FLYWHEEL NETWORKS, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-who ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION
Case 4:15-cv A Document 17 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 430
Case 4:15-cv-00720-A Document 17 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 430 US D!',THiCT cor KT NORTiiER\J li!''trlctoftexas " IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT r- ---- ~-~ ' ---~ NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXA
Case 3:17-cv EDL Document 53 Filed 11/17/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-edl Document Filed // Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARCELLA JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Defendant. Case No.-cv-0-EDL ORDER GRANTING
Case 3:09-cv B Document 17 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID 411 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:09-cv-01860-B Document 17 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID 411 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION FLOZELL ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-CV-1860-B
Case 2:12-cv GP Document 27 Filed 01/17/13 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 27 Filed 01/17/13 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SUE VALERI, : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION v. : : MYSTIC INDUSTRIES
Case 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
Case 4:15-cv-00335-A Document 237 Filed 07/29/15 Page 1 of 17 PageID 2748 JAMES H. WATSON, AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, vs. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEX FORT WORTH DIVISION Plaintiffs,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-2689-N ORDER
Case 3:14-cv-02689-N Document 15 Filed 01/09/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID 141 149 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION TUDOR INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 44 Filed: 06/23/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:583
Case: 1:17-cv-02066 Document #: 44 Filed: 06/23/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:583 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION INFORMATION SYSTEMS AUDIT AND CONTROL
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Snyder v. CACH, LLC Doc. 39 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII MARIA SNYDER, vs. Plaintiff, CACH, LLC; MANDARICH LAW GROUP, LLP; DAVID N. MATSUMIYA; TREVOR OZAWA, Defendants.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE TOMMY D. GARREN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 3:17-cv-149 ) v. ) Judge Collier ) CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, et al. ) Magistrate Judge Poplin
Case 4:12-cv Y Document 99 Filed 12/31/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID 2155
Case 4:12-cv-00314-Y Document 99 Filed 12/31/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID 2155 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF FORT WORTH,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION JAMES WEBB, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Case No. 4:16-cv-00080-W-FJG ) FARMERS OF NORTH AMERICA, ) INC., and JAMES MANN, ) )
Case 2:16-cv JHS Document 16 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA OPINION
Case 2:16-cv-05042-JHS Document 16 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FRANLOGIC SCOUT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, et al., v. Petitioners, CIVIL
Case: 4:15-cv JAR Doc. #: 21 Filed: 08/05/16 Page: 1 of 13 PageID #: 302
Case: 4:15-cv-01361-JAR Doc. #: 21 Filed: 08/05/16 Page: 1 of 13 PageID #: 302 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION TIMOTHY H. JONES, Plaintiff, v. No. 4:15-cv-01361-JAR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII
WDCD, LLC v. istar, Inc. Doc. 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII WDCD, LLC, A HAWAII LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, vs. Plaintiff, istar, INC., A MARYLAND CORPORATION, Defendant. CIV. NO. 17-00301
Introduction. The Nature of the Dispute
Featured Article Expanding the Reach of Arbitration Agreements: A Pennsylvania Federal Court Opinion Applies Principles of Agency and Contract Law to Require a Subsidiary-Reinsurer to Arbitrate Under Parent
Case 2:11-mc VAR-MKM Document 3 Filed 02/14/11 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:11-mc-50160-VAR-MKM Document 3 Filed 02/14/11 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DRAEGER SAFETY DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Plaintiff, CASE NUMBER: 11-50160
Case 1:14-cv JG Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2016 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:14-cv-21244-JG Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2016 Page 1 of 12 JASZMANN ESPINOZA, et al., v. Plaintiffs, GALARDI SOUTH ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-0-WQH -NLS Document Filed 0// Page of 0 CHINMAX MEDICAL SYSTEMS INC., a Chinese Corporation, vs. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, ALERE SAN DIEGO, INC.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. ORDER v. Rudy Alarcon, et al., Defendants.
Case :-cv-00-dlr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Dream Team Holdings LLC, et al., No. CV--00-PHX-DLR Plaintiffs, ORDER v. Rudy Alarcon,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv MR-DLH
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00030-MR-DLH TRIBAL CASINO GAMING ) ENTERPRISE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) MEMORANDUM
Case 5:17-cv KS-MTP Document 51 Filed 10/19/17 Page 1 of 7
Case 5:17-cv-00088-KS-MTP Document 51 Filed 10/19/17 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI WESTERN DIVISION RICHLAND EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. PLAINTIFF
Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex Commercial Disputes)
Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex Commercial Disputes) Rules Amended and Effective October 1, 2013 Fee Schedule Amended and Effective June 1,
Marc L. Silverman, for appellant. William H. Roth, for respondent Brady. At issue is whether petitioner met her burden of
================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION NO. 4:15-CV-103-FL ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION NO. 4:15-CV-103-FL CARL E. DAVIS, v. Plaintiff, BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORP.; BLUE ARBOR, INC.; and TESI SCREENING,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New York et al v. FCE Benefit Administrators, Inc. Doc. 35 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION STANDARD
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS. No CV. HAMILTON GUARANTY CAPITAL, LLC, Appellant,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS No. 05-11-01401-CV 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 02/08/2012 14:00 Lisa Matz, Clerk HAMILTON GUARANTY CAPITAL, LLC, Appellant, v. ORPHAN
Case 2:14-cv JTF-dkv Document 20 Filed 05/07/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID 182
Case 2:14-cv-02292-JTF-dkv Document 20 Filed 05/07/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID 182 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION SHANE PRATT; JODI PRATT; CHRIS WHITE;
COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI EDINBURG NUMBER CV MISSION PIPELINE COMPANY N/K/A MISSION PIPELINE, LLC,
COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI EDINBURG NUMBER 13-12-00265-CV FRONTERA GENERATION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellant, v. MISSION PIPELINE COMPANY N/K/A MISSION PIPELINE, LLC,
Case 1:18-cv CMA Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:18-cv-20859-CMA Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 1 of 6 CAPORICCI U.S.A. CORP., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA v. Plaintiff, PRADA S.p.A., et al., Defendants.
Struggle over Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings Continues: The Eighth Circuit Chooses Sides, The
Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 1991 Issue 1 Article 12 1991 Struggle over Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings Continues: The Eighth Circuit Chooses Sides, The Scott E. Blair Follow this and
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 No. 10-0734 444444444444 AMERICO LIFE, INC., AMERICO FINANCIAL LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, GREAT SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, THE OHIO STATE LIFE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff,
Case :-cv-000-mma-ksc Document Filed // PageID. Page of 0 0 ANTHONY OLIVER, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, FIRST CENTURY BANK, N.A., and STORED VALUE CARDS,
Case 2:17-cv DB Document 48 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:17-cv-00207-DB Document 48 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION HOMELAND MUNITIONS, LLC, BIRKEN STARTREE HOLDINGS, CORP., KILO CHARLIE,
Miller v. Flume* I. INTRODUCTION
Miller v. Flume* I. INTRODUCTION Issues of arbitrability frequently arise between parties to arbitration agreements. Typically, parties opposing arbitration on the ground that there is no agreement to
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 15-1620 Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC lllllllllllllllllllllpetitioner v. National Labor Relations Board lllllllllllllllllllllrespondent ------------------------------
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO TRANSFER OR STAY
Pfizer Inc. et al v. Sandoz Inc. Doc. 50 Civil Action No. 09-cv-02392-CMA-MJW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello PFIZER, INC., PFIZER PHARMACEUTICALS,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION. No. 4:15-CV-103-FL ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION No. 4:15-CV-103-FL CARL E. DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORP.; BLUE ARBOR, INC.; and TESI SCREENING,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
Rel: April 20, 2018 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama
Case 3:15-cv TLB Document 96 Filed 04/22/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 791
Case 3:15-cv-03035-TLB Document 96 Filed 04/22/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 791 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HARRISON DIVISION ZETOR NORTH AMERICA, INC. PLAINTIFF V. CASE
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-60083 Document: 00513290279 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT NEW ORLEANS GLASS COMPANY, INCORPORATED, United States Court of Appeals Fifth
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WAKE 14 CVS 11860
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WAKE 14 CVS 11860 ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE, LLC ) Movant, ) ) ORDER ON MOTION FOR v. ) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CHAMBLISS v. DARDEN RESTAURANTS INC. Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION STACEY CHAMBLISS, vs. Plaintiff, DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC., d/b/a THE OLIVE GARDEN,
Case: 5:10-cv SL Doc #: 20 Filed: 07/15/11 1 of 8. PageID #: 626 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 5:10-cv-02691-SL Doc #: 20 Filed: 07/15/11 1 of 8. PageID #: 626 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION HUGUES GREGO, et al., CASE NO. 5:10CV2691 PLAINTIFFS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:17-cv-08503-PSG-GJS Document 62 Filed 09/05/18 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:844 Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge Wendy Hernandez Deputy Clerk Attorneys Present for
G.G. et al v. Valve Corporation Doc. 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
G.G. et al v. Valve Corporation Doc. 0 THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 G.G., A.L., and B.S., individually and on behalf of all
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:14-cv-23-RJC-DCK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:14-cv-23-RJC-DCK MOVEMENT MORTGAGE, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ORDER JARED WARD; JUAN CARLOS KELLEY; ) JASON STEGNER;
Case 2:15-cv NJB-SS Document 47 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:15-cv-00150-NJB-SS Document 47 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA PARKCREST BUILDERS, LLC CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 15-150 C/W 15-1531 Pertains
Case 1:15-cv KBF Document 42 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 7 X : : : : : : : : : : : : : : X
Case 115-cv-09605-KBF Document 42 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------- LAI CHAN, HUI
United States District Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION AMKOR TECHNOLOGY, INC., 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 v. TESSERA, INC., Petitioner(s), Respondent(s). / ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-00-dgc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 WO Guy Pinto, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT USAA Insurance Agency Incorporated of Texas (FN), et al., Defendants. FOR THE DISTRICT OF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Randazzo Enterprises, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Asssurance Company, Inc. Doc. United States District Court 0 RANDAZZO ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation, v. Plaintiff, APPLIED
Case 2:17-cv JP Document 76-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : :
Case 217-cv-03232-JP Document 76-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL R. NELSON, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, v. NO. 17-3232 DAVID
Case: 5:17-cv SL Doc #: 22 Filed: 12/01/17 1 of 9. PageID #: 1107 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 5:17-cv-01695-SL Doc #: 22 Filed: 12/01/17 1 of 9. PageID #: 1107 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION BOUNTY MINERALS, LLC, CASE NO. 5:17cv1695 PLAINTIFF, JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv MR-DLH
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00132-MR-DLH TRIBAL CASINO GAMING ) ENTERPRISE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) MEMORANDUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv MOC-DSC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv-00540-MOC-DSC LUANNA SCOTT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vs. ) ORDER ) FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., )
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 27, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D15-1652 Consolidated: 3D15-1124 Lower Tribunal No.
Chicken or Egg: Applying the Age- Old Question to Class Waivers in Employee Arbitration Agreements
Chicken or Egg: Applying the Age- Old Question to Class Waivers in Employee Arbitration Agreements By Bonnie Burke, Lawrence & Bundy LLC and Christina Tellado, Reed Smith LLP Companies with employees across
Case 1:08-cv DAB Document 78 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 5. On March 10, 2010, this Court denied Defendants recovery
Case 1:08-cv-01507-DAB Document 78 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------X NOKIA CORP., USDC sm.v.-: DOCUMENT \ ELEC'!~ONICAllY
Case 5:17-cv XR Document 12 Filed 06/07/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
Case 5:17-cv-00179-XR Document 12 Filed 06/07/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION THOMAS MAYTON, Plaintiff, v. TEMPOE, LLC, ET AL., Defendants.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. V. No. 3:15-cv-818-D-BN
Crespin v. Stephens Doc. 38 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JEREMY CRESPIN (TDCJ No. 1807429), Petitioner, V. No. 3:15-cv-818-D-BN WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director
Mandatory Arbitration of Title VII Claims: A New Approach - Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Lai
Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 1996 Issue 1 Article 15 1996 Mandatory Arbitration of Title VII Claims: A New Approach - Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Lai Catherine Chatman Follow this and
unconscionability and the unavailability of the forum, is not frivolous. In Inetianbor
Case 4:14-cv-00024-HLM Document 30-1 Filed 05/09/14 Page 1 of 11 JOSHUA PARNELL, Plaintiff, v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION WESTERN SKY FINANCIAL,
Case 3:06-cv TBR Document 12 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 1 of 12
Case 3:06-cv-00569-TBR Document 12 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:06-CV-569-R TIMOTHY LANDIS PLAINTIFF v. PINNACLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KAREN MACKALL, v. Plaintiff, HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL STAFFING, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-who ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION Re:
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL:08/21/2009 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
Case 1:15-cv LEK-KJM Document 22 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 458 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
Case 1:15-cv-00481-LEK-KJM Document 22 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 458 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII NELSON BALBERDI, vs. Plaintiff, FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION ORDER
Glazer's, Inc. v. Mark Anthony Brands, Inc. d/b/a Mike's Hard Beverage Company Doc. 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION GLAZER S, INC., v. Plaintiff,
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT ALERT-- U.S. FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INVALIDATES ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN AT-WILL HANDBOOK, APPLYING TEXAS LAW
WRITTEN BY: J. Wilson Eaton ARBITRATION AGREEMENT ALERT-- U.S. FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INVALIDATES ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN AT-WILL HANDBOOK, APPLYING TEXAS LAW Employers with arbitration agreements
Case 2:17-cv KOB Document 21 Filed 03/07/18 Page 1 of 18
Case 2:17-cv-00289-KOB Document 21 Filed 03/07/18 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION FILED 2018 Mar-07 PM 04:31 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. San Francisco Division INTRODUCTION
United States District Court PETE PETERSON, v. LYFT, INC., Plaintiff, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA San Francisco Division INTRODUCTION Case No. -cv-0-lb ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. Richmond Division MEMORANDUM OPINION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division KIM J. BENNETT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 3:10CV39-JAG DILLARD S, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION
Case 0:12-cv WPD Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2012 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:12-cv-61322-WPD Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2012 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GEOVANY QUIROZ, CASE NO. 12-61322-CIV-DIMITROULEAS Plaintiff,
Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 23 Filed: 08/22/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:148
Case: 1:16-cv-02127 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/22/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:148 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION CATHERINE GONZALEZ, ) ) Plaintiff,