Case 2:10-cv SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Case 2:10-cv-03242-SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA"

Transcription

1 Case 2:10-cv SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA KATHLEEN A. BRANDNER, individually, and CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT on behalf of her minor child M.B., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated NO.: 2:10-cv Plaintiffs SECTION: R Versus MAGISTRATE: (3) ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., d/b/a ABBOTT SALES, MARKETING & DISTRIBUTION CO., and ABBOTT LABORATORIES d/b/a ABBOTT NUTRITION Defendants, FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL AND AMENDING CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT NOW COMES KATHLEEN A. BRANDNER, individually, and on behalf of her minor child M.B., and, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and now pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), supplement and amend the original Complaint to name an additional defendant, to revise and restate the class definition, to add allegations under Louisiana law and to strike certain allegations, now with respect state for their supplemental and amended Complaint as follows:

2 Case 2:10-cv SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 2 of This class action seeks damages and injunctive relief to redress Defendants sale of defective infant formula under the brand name Similac that contained contaminants including parts and pieces of beetles and beetle larvae, and that has caused, or will cause in the future, damage including injuries to infants who consume the Similac, and damages including medical expenses, worry, and emotional distress to the parents of infants who consume the Similac. 2. Defendants have publicly admitted that they sold the contaminated Similac with containing the contaminants including parts and pieces of beetles and beetle larvae. This class action seeks to obtain for Plaintiffs and the Class full and complete monetary and injunctive relief under federal and applicable state law. 3. Plaintiffs are: A. Kathleen A. Brandner is an individual consumer who, at all times material hereto, was and is a resident of Jefferson Parish and a Citizen of Louisiana. Plaintiff M.B., is Mrs. Brandner s infant child who also resides in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. 4. Defendants are: A. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business located in North Chicago, Illinois, d/b/a Abbott Sales, Marketing & Distribution Co. For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Abbott may be considered a citizen of Illinois and/or Delaware. At all times relevant hereto, Abbott was and is doing business within this judicial district. 2

3 Case 2:10-cv SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 3 of 17 B. Abbott Laboratories an Illinois Corporation d/b/a Abbott Nutrition. (Defendants Abbott Laboratories, Inc. and Abbott Laboratories are hereinafter collectively referred to as Abbott ). 5. Jurisdiction in this matter is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C because all Plaintiffs and the Class are diverse in citizenship in relation to Defendants and because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of attorney s fees, costs and interest. 6. Jurisdiction in this matter also lies under the Court s supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1367, because all state-based claims asserted herein arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as claims otherwise based on diversity jurisdiction. 7. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Louisiana under 28 U.S.C because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district. 8. This action arises as a result of a course of conduct by Defendants in manufacturing, producing, supplying, marketing, selling, advertising, and otherwise distributing Similac infant formula that contained contaminants including parts and pieces of beetles and beetle larvae and was unfit and dangerous for normal use, and caused Plaintiffs and the Class to suffer damages. 9. Abbott is in the business of formulating, designing, manufacturing, marketing, advertising, distributing and selling various infant powder formulas including those contained in rectangular plastic tubs. Abbott formulates, designs, manufactures, markets, advertises, distributes and sells 3

4 Case 2:10-cv SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 4 of 17 Similac products which it promotes on its packaging as being safe for infants. Similac products are sold in grocery stores and pharmacies throughout the United States, including Sam s Club, where Plaintiff Kathleen Brandner purchased the product. In 2010, Abbott has sold millions of its Similac products in the United States. 10. Similac infant formula contaminated with contaminants including parts and pieces of beetles and beetle larvae is harmful to infants who consume formula and could cause those infants to experience symptoms of gastrointestinal discomfort and refusal to eat as a result of small insect parts irritating the GI tract, and in some cases my necessitate medical intervention and related expenses. 11. The packaging of the Similac infant formula products promotes their use to build immune support, strong bones and brain and eye. In addition, Abbotts marketing claims that: Each of the formulas in our line provides the balance of protein, minerals, and other nutrients that helps give babies a strong start in life. A baby s first year is so important, so count on Similac for nutrition you can trust. 12. The Similac infant formula product packaging makes much of Similac being a formula approved and used most by hospitals. In this regard, Similac packaging boasts that it is safe for the consumption by infants. 4

5 Case 2:10-cv SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 5 of On September 22, 2010, Abbott announced that consumers should immediately stop using Similac powder products because they were believed to contain pieces of beetles or beetle larvae. The recall included certain Similac powder product lines offered in plastic containers, and certain Similac powder product lines offered in sizes such as 8-ounce, 12.4-ounce and 12.9-ounce cans. Abbott s announcement stated: Abbott is recalling these products following an internal quality review, which detected the remote possibility of the presence of a small common beetle in the product produced in one production area in a single manufacturing facility. The United States Food and Drug administration (FDA) has determined that while the formula containing these beetles poses no immediate health risk, there is a possibility that infants who consume formula containing the beetles or their larvae, could experience symptoms of gastrointestinal discomfort and refusal to eat as a result of small insect parts irritating the GI tract. If these symptoms persist for more than a few days, a physician should be consulted. 14. Plaintiff, Kathleen Brandner, has purchased Similac products, and her infant chiild M.B. has consumed said products since April On or about September 22, 2010, Kathleen Brandner learned of the Abbott Similac recall notice while on the internet. She then went to the Abbott recall website and determined from the recall information posted thereon that the container of Similac product that she was currently using to feed her infant child and bearing lot number 89241T20 was part of the Abbott recall. 5

6 Case 2:10-cv SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 6 of Kathleen Brandner next checked the lot numbers 85430T20, 86542Y20, 87880T20 as found on the other containers that she had used to feed her infant child since April Each of the lot numbers were part of the recall according to Abbott s recall list. 17. During the period between April 2010 and about September 22, 2010 Kathleen Brandner s infant chhild M.B. suffered gastro-intestinal problems that required numerous inquiries of the infant s physician, including telephone consultations and visits to the doctor. 18. Upon information and belief, Defendants first discovered that the Similac was tainted with beetle parts and beetle larvae approximately one week before finally issuing a recall notice on September 22, 2010, thus, Defendants knowingly allowed the tainted product to remain on the market, and allowing Plaintiff and members of the class to continue to feed said product to their infant children causing Plaintiffs and the Class further harm. 19. Because Defendants waited a week to issue the recall after learning that the product was tainted, Defendants continued to sell the product and knowingly collected sales revenues from said sales to the Plaintiff and members of the Class even though they knew that the product was defective. 20. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class defined as follows: 6

7 Case 2:10-cv SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 7 of 17 All persons in Louisiana who purchased Similac products bearing the recall lot numbers as stated on Exhibit A attached hereto, during the Similac Recall Purchase Period. The Similac Recall Purchase Period means the period of time commencing on or about September 22, Excluded from Class are any directors, officers or employees of Defendants, members of their immediate families, and any director, officer or employee of any entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest, and legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such persons. 21. This action is properly maintained as a class action for the following reasons, to wit. 22. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all class members is impractical. While the exact number of class members can be determined only by appropriate discovery, Plaintiffs believe that the class includes tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of members. Undersigned counsel has already been contacted by hundreds of individuals who have purchased and who s infant children have consumed the tainted Similac products. The members of the Class are so numerous that it would be impracticable to join all such persons in this action. 23. The claims of the representative parties raise questions of law and fact that are common to all members of the class within the meaning of Rule 23(a)(2) and (b)(3). These predominate and common questions of law and fact include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: a. Whether Defendants sold Similac infant formula to Plaintiffs and the Class that was contaminated with beetle parts and beetle larvae; b. Whether Similac infant formula contaminated with beetle parts and beetle larvae can cause injury to infants who consume it; 7

8 Case 2:10-cv SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 8 of 17 c. Whether Similac infant formula contaminated with beetle parts and beetle larvae sold by Defendants to Plaintiffs and the Class caused damage and injury to the Plaintiffs and the Class; d. Whether Defendants had a duty to properly formulate, design, manufacture, promote, market, advertise, package, label, distribute and/or sell the the Similac infant formula sold to the public; e. Whether Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiffs and the Class by failing to properly formulate, design, manufacture, promote, market, advertise, package, label, distribute and/or sell the the Similac infant formula sold to the public; f. Whether Defendants had a duty to remove the beetle parts and beetle larvae from the Similac infant formula they sold to the public; g. Whether Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiffs and the Class by failing to remove the beetle parts and beetle larvae from the Similac infant formula they sold to the public; h. Whether Defendants had a duty to warn Plaintiffs that their Similac infant formula contained dangerous contaminants including beetle parts and beetle larvae; i. Whether Defendants breached their duty to the Plaintiffs and the Class by failing to warn that their Similac infant formula contained dangerous contaminants including beetle parts and beetle larvae; j. Whether Defendants failed to perform an adequate inspection and/or test of their Similac infant formula prior to distributing it to the public; k. Whether Defendants failed to institute or follow policies and procedures concerning the premature discharge of untested or improperly tested Similac infant formula; l. Whether Defendants Similac infant formula possessed redhibitory defects; 8

9 Case 2:10-cv SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 9 of 17 m. Whether Defendants Similac infant formula contained contaminants including beetle parts and beetle larvae at the time Defendants delivered and sold the Similac infant formula to Plaintiffs and the Class; n. Whether Defendant warned Plaintiffs and the Class prior to their purchase that the Similac infant formula contained a redhibitory defect; o. Whether Defendants sale of defective Similac infant formula that was tainted with contaminants including beetle parts and beetle larvae violated the Louisiana Products Liability Act; p. Whether Defendants Similac infant formula was unreasonably dangerous as defined by the Louisiana Products Liability Act; q. Whether Defendants Similac infant formula was, as defined by the Louisiana Products Liability Act, unreasonably dangerous in construction or composition; r. Whether Defendants Similac infant formula was, as defined by the Louisiana Products Liability, unreasonably dangerous because Defendants failed to provide an adequate warning that the Similac infant formula was defective because it contained contaminants including beetle parts and beetle larvae; s. Whether Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs and the Class; t. Whether Plaintiffs and the Class have sustained damages as a result of Defendants unlawful actions; and u. The extent of injuries suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class. 24. As required by Rule 23(a)(3), Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of other members of the class, and Plaintiffs have no interest that is adverse or antagonistic to the interest 9

10 Case 2:10-cv SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 10 of 17 of the class. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the members of the class because all such claims arise from a series of identical circumstances and business practices involving Defendants sale of contaminated Similac infant formula. 25. As required by Rule 23(a)(4), Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of each member of the class. Plaintiffs are committed to the vigorous prosecution of this action and have retained competent counsel experienced in prosecuting and defending class actions. 26. This action is properly maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), int hat questions of law and fact common to the claims of the Plaintiffs and members of the class predominate over questions of law or fact affecting only individual members of the class, such that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The issues relating to the claims of the Plaintiffs do not vary from the issues relating to the claims of the other members of the class, such that a class action provides a far more efficient vehicle to resolve those claims than through a myriad of separate lawsuits. All of these issues arise from Defendants sale of Similac infant formula contaminated with beetle parts and beetle larvae to Plaintiffs and the Class. These are predominate questions of law and fact that are common to all members of the class, including but not limited to those set forth above. 27. This action is also maintainable under Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to all the members of the class, making final injunctive relief or declaratory relief concerning the class as a whole appropriate. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief 10

11 Case 2:10-cv SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 11 of 17 prohibiting Defendants from selling contaminated Similac infant formula in the future, and requiring the Defendants to put in place sufficient precautions such that its Similac infant formula is not contaminated in the future. COUNT I (Redhibition) 28. Plaintiffs re-allege the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1 through 27 as if fully set forth herein. 29. Under Louisiana law, specifically by operation of La. Civ. Code 2520, sellers provide a warranty to buyers to protect against hidden or redhibitory defects in all products or things sold. 30. Defendants contaminated Similac infant formula contained a redhibitory defect pursuant to La. Civ. Code 2520 because the inclusion of beetle parts and beetle larvae in the Similac infant formula rendered the product useless, or its use so inconvenient that it must be presumed that Plaintiffs and the Class would not have bought the Similac infant formula had they known of the defect. This redhibitory defect was present in the Similac infant formula at the time Defendants delivered and sold the Similac infant formula to Plaintiffs and the Class. 31. Defendant did not warn Plaintiffs and the Class prior to their purchase that the Similac infant formula contained a redhibitory defect. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the use of Defendants contaminated Similac 11

12 Case 2:10-cv SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 12 of 17 infant formula, the Class has suffered economic damages, including, but not limited to, damage and lost purchase price of the product. 33. Pursuant to La. Civ. Code 2531 and 2545, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs and the Class for repair and remedy, return of the sale price with interest from the time it was paid, reimbursement for the reasonable expenses occasioned by the sale and its consequences, and for any further loss occasioned by the purchase of the Similac infant formula and its consequences, as well as damages and attorneys fees. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Class demand, pursuant to La. Civ. Code 2520 et seq., compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants for Redhibition, including but not limited to, monetary damages, rescission, return of the sale price, interest, reimbursement for the reasonable expenses occasioned by the sale and its consequences, reasonable expenses and attorneys fees, any other relief available under Louisiana Civil Code for Redhibition, and other relief this Court deems just and proper. COUNT II (Louisiana Products Liability Act) 34. Plaintiffs re-allege the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1 through 27 as if fully set forth herein. 35. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs under Louisiana law, specifically the Louisiana 12

13 Case 2:10-cv SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 13 of 17 Products Liability Act, LSA R.S. 9: , et seq. for damages caused by their defective product, because the product is unreasonably dangerous in construction or composition, and/or unreasonably dangerous because Defendants failed to provide an adequate warning. 36. The Similac infant formula concerned in this litigation was unreasonably dangerous in construction, composition and design under LSA R.S. 9: , because at the time the product left the manufacturer s control the product deviated in a material way from the manufacturer s specifications and/or performance standards in that the Similac infant formula contained beetle parts and beetle larvae that could cause injury to consumers of the product. 37. Defendants Similac infant formula was unreasonably dangerous because of inadequate warning under LSA R.S. 9: because at the time the product left the Defendants control the product possessed a characteristic (beetle parts and beetle larvae ) that could, and did cause damage, and the Defendants failed to use reasonable care to provide an adequate warning of such characteristic and its dangers to the users of the Similac infant formula. 38. The danger of using said Similac infant formula is beyond the danger which would be contemplated by ordinary users of the product. 39. Prior to using the product, the users of Defendants product did not know, nor should they be reasonably expected to know of the beetle parts and beetle larvae content of the product and that such characteristic might cause damage

14 Case 2:10-cv SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 14 of 17 Even if Defendants did not know of the beetle parts and beetle larvae content of the Similac infant formula until after the product left its control, which is not conceded, the Defendants remains liable for failing to use reasonable care to provide an adequate warning of such characteristic and its danger to the users of the product. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Class demand compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants for violation of the Louisiana Products Liability Act and such other relief this Court deems just and proper. COUNT III (Actio de in Rem Verso) 41. Plaintiffs re-allege the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1 through 27 as if fully set forth herein, and plead in addition to the hereinabove stated counts, or in the alternative thereto, and plead entitlement to the equitable remedy of actio de in rem verso as a result of the defendants enrichment without cause, to wit: 42. As a result of the unlawful acts and practices of Defendants described above, Defendants have been enriched without cause by the monies collected from Plaintiffs and the Class because Defendants obtained a profit from Plaintiffs in exchange for Similac infant formula, which was contaminated with beetle parts and beetle larvae. 43. As a result of the unlawful acts and practices of Defendants described above, Plaintiffs and the Class have been impoverished by purchasing from and paying monies to the Defendants in exchange for the contaminated Similac infant formula. 14

15 Case 2:10-cv SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 15 of There is a connection between the Plaintiffs and the Class impoverishment and Defendants enrichment arising from Defendants sale to the Plaintiffs and the Class of the contaminated Similac infant formula. 45. Defendants voluntarily accepted the enrichment that was conferred by Plaintiffs and the Class. 46. There is no justification for Defendants enrichment and Plaintiffs and the Class impoverishment because such enrichment and impoverishment was procured through unlawful and/or deceptive means of Defendants. 47. Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to the equitable remedy under the theory of actio de in rem verso in the amount of Defendants enrichment or the Plaintiffs and the Class impoverishment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Class demand compensation in the form of the equitable remedy of actio de in rem verso and any and all such other relief this Court deems just and proper, premises considered. ALL COUNT RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, respectfully request that this Court grant the following relief: (a) an order certifying this action as a class action as set forth herein and designating Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives of the Class, as described above; 15

16 Case 2:10-cv SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 16 of 17 (b) an order awarding Plaintiffs and the Class damages and/or restitution and appropriate remedial relief; c) an order awarding Plaintiffs and the Class attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred in this action, including reasonable costs of experts retained by counsel; (d) a preliminary and permanent order providing for injunctive relief to enjoin Defendants from future distribution and sale Similac infant formula contaminated with beetle parts and beetle larvae and other contaminants; and (e) such other relief this Court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable by right. Respectfully Submitted, AND s/ David S. Scalia DAVID S. SCALIA (LSBA #21369) SCALIA LAW FIRM 855 Baronne Street New Orleans, Louisiana Telephone: (504) Facsimile: (504) MICHAEL S. BRANDNER, JR (LSBA #27973) BRANDNER LAW FIRM, LLC 3324 N. Causeway Blvd. Metairie, Louisiana Telephone: (504) Facsimile: (504)

17 Case 2:10-cv SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 17 of 17 AND STEPHEN S. KRELLER (LSBA #28440) THE KRELLER LAW FIRM 4224 Canal Street New Orleans, Louisiana Telephone: (504) Facsimile: (888) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing has been served upon all counsel th of record through the Court s CM/ECF electronic filing system, on this 6 Day of December, s/ David S. Scalia David S. Scalia 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON RONALD A. MARRON (SBN 10) ron@consumersadvocates.com ALEXIS WOOD (SBN 000) alexis@consumersadvocates.com KAS GALLUCCI (SBN 0) kas@consumersadvocates.com

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-000-jah -CAB Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. (SBN: ) josh@westcoastlitigation.com Robert L. Hyde, Esq. (SBN: ) bob@westcoastlitigation.com Hyde & Swigart Camino Del Rio South,

More information

Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY CENTRAL DISTRICT STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE

Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY CENTRAL DISTRICT STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE VACHON LAW FIRM Michael R. Vachon, Esq. (SBN ) 0 Via Del Campo, Suite San Diego, California Tel.: () -0 Fax: () - Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY CENTRAL

More information

Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION. MARIA GODINEZ, an individual,

Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION. MARIA GODINEZ, an individual, VACHON LAW FIRM Michael R. Vachon, Esq. (SBN ) 0 Via Del Campo, Suite San Diego, California Tel.: () -0 Fax: () - Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

More information

No. Plaintiff Kelvin Bledsoe ( Plaintiff ), by his undersigned counsel, brings claims

No. Plaintiff Kelvin Bledsoe ( Plaintiff ), by his undersigned counsel, brings claims UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KELVIN BLEDSOE, Plaintiff, v. SAAQIN, INC., No. COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. Plaintiff Kelvin

More information

2:14-cv-03460-RMG Date Filed 08/27/14 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 8

2:14-cv-03460-RMG Date Filed 08/27/14 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 8 2:14-cv-03460-RMG Date Filed 08/27/14 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION DANIEL CHRISTOPHER DRUMMOND AND PAULANN PERRY,

More information

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. KIM WALLANT and LOUIS BOREK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, vs. Plaintiffs, FREEDOM

More information

-1- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-1- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT VACHON LAW FIRM Michael R. Vachon, Esq. (SBN ) 0 Via Del Campo, Suite San Diego, California Tel.: () -0 Fax: () - Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

More information

CIVIL DICTRICT COURT PARISH OF ORLEANS STATE OF LOUISIANA

CIVIL DICTRICT COURT PARISH OF ORLEANS STATE OF LOUISIANA CIVIL DICTRICT COURT PARISH OF ORLEANS STATE OF LOUISIANA LESTER ANSARDI, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED SUIT NO. PLAINTIFF VERSUS UNITED STATES MARITIME SERVICES, INC., UNITED

More information

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND District Court, Denver County, Colorado 1437 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80202 GUILLERMO ARTEAGA-GOMEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DATE FILED: January 22, 2015 6:02

More information

Plaintiff Carol Parker ( Plaintiff ), residing at 32 Coleman Way, Jackson, NJ 08527, by her undersigned counsel, alleges the following upon personal

Plaintiff Carol Parker ( Plaintiff ), residing at 32 Coleman Way, Jackson, NJ 08527, by her undersigned counsel, alleges the following upon personal UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAROL PARKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, PARADE ENTERPRISES, LLC, No. 3:14-CV-08084-MAS-DEA AMENDED COMPLAINT

More information

Case 2:14-cv-01620-KOB Document 1 Filed 08/20/14 Page 1 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-01620-KOB Document 1 Filed 08/20/14 Page 1 of 38 Case 2:14-cv-01620-KOB Document 1 Filed 08/20/14 Page 1 of 38 FILED 2014 Aug-21 AM 11:13 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN

More information

Case: 1:13-cv-08310 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

Case: 1:13-cv-08310 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1 Case: 1:13-cv-08310 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL GRANT, individually and on

More information

Case No.: CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF WORKMANSHIP AND HABITABILITY. Plaintiffs,

Case No.: CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF WORKMANSHIP AND HABITABILITY. Plaintiffs, 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Stephen L. Weber, Esq. (AZ SBN 01) Michael J. White, Esq. (AZ SBN 01) James W. Fleming, Esq. (AZ SBN 0) KASDAN SIMONDS WEBER & VAUGHAN LLP 00 N. Central Ave., Suite 0 Phoenix, AZ 0 E-Mail:

More information

Case Number XXX I. INTRODUCTION. 1. Defendants E.G.O. and E.R.O., prepare immigration documents for customers for a

Case Number XXX I. INTRODUCTION. 1. Defendants E.G.O. and E.R.O., prepare immigration documents for customers for a STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION Case Number XXX A.C.G., J.G.M., on behalf of themselves and ) all others similarly situated, ) Plaintiffs )

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM DIVISION ELECTRONICALLY FILED 5/18/2012 2:30 PM CV-2012-901583.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA ANNE-MARIE ADAMS, CLERK IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM DIVISION ZACHARY

More information

COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND. of police reports in bad faith. Plaintiff claims that Defendants acted willfully, wantonly and in

COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND. of police reports in bad faith. Plaintiff claims that Defendants acted willfully, wantonly and in Weld County, Colorado, District Court, 901 9 th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 970.351.7300 Plaintiff: vs. Defendants: JENNIFER BELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, BRADLEY PETROLEUM,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MOBILE TRANSFORMATION LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Case No. A&E TELEVISION NETWORKS, LLC JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. COMPLAINT Plaintiff

More information

Case 3:08-cv-00920-JAP-JJH Document 1 Filed 02/20/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:08-cv-00920-JAP-JJH Document 1 Filed 02/20/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 3:08-cv-00920-JAP-JJH Document 1 Filed 02/20/2008 Page 1 of 13 Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 236 Tillou Road South Orange, NJ 07079 Telephone: (973 313-1887 Fax: (973 833-0399 lrosen@rosenlegal.com

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. ) CASE NO. ATTORNEY GENERAL ) MICHAEL DEWINE ) JUDGE 30 E. Broad St., 14 th Floor ) Columbus, Ohio 43215 ) ) PLAINTIFF, ) ) V.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 Daniel G. Shay, CA Bar #0 danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 0 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 1B San Diego, California 0 Tel:.. Fax:.1. Benjamin H. Richman* brichman@edelson.com J.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No.: 15-cv-157 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No.: 15-cv-157 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CORY GROSHEK, and all others, similarly situated, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN v. Case No.: 15-cv-157 TIME WARNER CABLE INC. Defendant. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiff,

More information

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1 Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION GARY HANLEY on behalf of himself and

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA H.L. WATKINS AND COMPANY, INC., ) ) PLAINTIFF, ) ) CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. v. ) ) 06-CV8980-3 THE HOT LEAD COMPANY, LLC, ) ROBERT MICHAEL HORNE, )

More information

0004853 O8. RECEIVED Civil Clk' Office. JUN 2 7 2008 Superior Court of th District of Cohmibja

0004853 O8. RECEIVED Civil Clk' Office. JUN 2 7 2008 Superior Court of th District of Cohmibja C C IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION 1111 PENNSYLVANIA HOLDINGS LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company By and Through Its Managing Member 1111 Penn Holdings-i LLC A

More information

Case 2:06-cv-15766-JF-SDP Document 69 Filed 02/25/2008 Page 1 of 15

Case 2:06-cv-15766-JF-SDP Document 69 Filed 02/25/2008 Page 1 of 15 Case 2:06-cv-15766-JF-SDP Document 69 Filed 02/25/2008 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. MAZZONI

More information

4. Whole Foods Market, Inc. is a Texas Corporation whose principal office in

4. Whole Foods Market, Inc. is a Texas Corporation whose principal office in 4. Whole Foods Market, Inc. is a Texas Corporation whose principal office in this state is 601 North Lamar Blvd, Austin, Texas 78703. It may be served with process by serving CT Corporation System, 1021

More information

THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS: the Complaint which is herewith served upon you within twenty (20) days after the service of

THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS: the Complaint which is herewith served upon you within twenty (20) days after the service of STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: Personal Injury ERIC GUSTAFSON and JENNIFER GUSTAFSON, Individually and as parents and natural guardians for CALLIE

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JPM NETWORKS, LLC, ) d/b/a KWIKBOOST ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) 3:14-cv-1507 JCM FIRST VENTURE, LLC )

More information

Case 1:13-cv-11944 Document 1 Filed 08/13/13 Page 1 of 9 : : : : : : : : : : :

Case 1:13-cv-11944 Document 1 Filed 08/13/13 Page 1 of 9 : : : : : : : : : : : Case 113-cv-11944 Document 1 Filed 08/13/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Robert Pegg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, Collecto,

More information

9:10-cv-01756-MBS Date Filed 07/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA INTRODUCTION

9:10-cv-01756-MBS Date Filed 07/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA INTRODUCTION 9:10-cv-01756-MBS Date Filed 07/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON xxxxxxxxxxxdivision BEAUFORT ) Jonathon Rowles, individually

More information

Case 3:14-cv-02361-P Document 1 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Case 3:14-cv-02361-P Document 1 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION Case 3:14-cv-02361-P Document 1 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JAMES MICHAEL CLINE, Plaintiff VS. Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-2361

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH LAURIE PAUL, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff, vs. PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEMS-

More information

Case 1:15-cv-13004-GAO Document 1 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 1:15-cv-13004-GAO Document 1 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Case 1:15-cv-13004-GAO Document 1 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KEITH MATHEWS On behalf of himself and Others similarly situated Plaintiff, Case

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Luke L. Dauchot (SBN Nimalka R. Wickramasekera (SBN Benjamin A. Herbert (SBN South Hope Street Los Angeles, California 001 Telephone: (1 0-00 Facsimile: (1 0-00 Attorneys for Plaintiff, v.

More information

Case3:13-cv-02858-JST Document27 Filed11/27/13 Page1 of 14

Case3:13-cv-02858-JST Document27 Filed11/27/13 Page1 of 14 Case:-cv-0-JST Document Filed// Page of 0 Clayeo C. Arnold, California SBN 00 carnold@justiceyou.com Christine M. Doyle, California SBN 0 cdoyle@justiceyou.com CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION WAYNE WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, PROTECT SECURITY, LLC. Defendant.

More information

Case 9:13-cv-80670-DPG Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/11/2013 Page 1 of 8

Case 9:13-cv-80670-DPG Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/11/2013 Page 1 of 8 Case 9:13-cv-80670-DPG Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/11/2013 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 9:13-cv-80670-KAM AJA DE LOS SANTOS, an individual, on

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION Case: 1:10-cv-03314 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/30/10 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:63 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION JAMES ROWE, ) individually and on

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA. Plaintiffs, Jury Trial Demanded CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA. Plaintiffs, Jury Trial Demanded CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EARL K. CHERRY and SUSAN FANNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Civil Action No.: v. Plaintiffs, Jury

More information

Case 5:14-cv-00590-OLG Document 9 Filed 07/31/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 5:14-cv-00590-OLG Document 9 Filed 07/31/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION Case 5:14-cv-00590-OLG Document 9 Filed 07/31/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION DESTINY ANNMARIE RIOS Plaintiff VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-00590

More information

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case: 1:14-cv-08988 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/09/14 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS DALE BAKER, individually, and behalf of all others )

More information

1 2 3 4 5 [ATTORNEY NAME] (ATTORNEY STATE BAR NUMBER) [ATTORNEY EMAIL ADDRESS] [LAW FIRM NAME] [LAW FIRM STREET ADDRESS] [LAW FIRM CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE] [LAW FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER] [LAW FIRM FAX NUMBER]

More information

&lagistiiale JUDGE ROSEMONO

&lagistiiale JUDGE ROSEMONO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION H. STUiiiiT CGNNINGHAM UmEQ SIXm DISTRICT COW JULIE A. TEURBER, Plaintiff,' t ) CIVIL ACTION NO. V. CAROL M. BROWNER,

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9 th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9 th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9 th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA DEAN KUMANCHIK, vs. Plaintiff, Case No.: UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LTD d/b/a UNIVERSAL STUDIOS, a Florida

More information

Case 2:14-cv-00244 Document 1 Filed 02/19/14 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:14-cv-00244 Document 1 Filed 02/19/14 Page 1 of 9 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE DR. A. CEMAL EKIN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. Plaintiff,

More information

AMANDA K. HORTON; and KEITH ALSTRIN, No. CV06-2810 PHX DGC. Plaintiffs, AMENDED COMPLAINT

AMANDA K. HORTON; and KEITH ALSTRIN, No. CV06-2810 PHX DGC. Plaintiffs, AMENDED COMPLAINT SURRANO LAW OFFICES Charles J. Surrano (00) John N. Wilborn (0) 0 North Central Avenue, Suite 00 Phoenix, Arizona 0 Phone: (0) - Attorneys for Plaintiffs AMANDA K. HORTON; and KEITH ALSTRIN, IN THE UNITED

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION ZIPIT WIRELESS INC., Plaintiff, v. BLACKBERRY LIMITED F/K/A RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED and BLACKBERRY CORPORATION f/k/a

More information

Case: 1:16-cv-04705 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/27/16 Page 1 of 29 PageID #:1

Case: 1:16-cv-04705 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/27/16 Page 1 of 29 PageID #:1 Case: 1:16-cv-04705 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/27/16 Page 1 of 29 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION STACY PINCUS, individually and on behalf

More information

Case 2:10-cv-01224-JCM-LRL Document 1 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:10-cv-01224-JCM-LRL Document 1 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 8 Case :0-cv-0-JCM-LRL Document Filed 0//0 Page of Reno, NV ( -00 Fax ( 0-0 0 Mark R. Thierman, NV# laborlawyer@pacbell.net THIERMAN LAW FIRM, P.C. Reno, Nevada Tel: ( -00 Fax: ( 0-0 David R. Markham, CAL#

More information

Case3:15-cv-03986-JCS Document1 Filed09/01/15 Page1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case3:15-cv-03986-JCS Document1 Filed09/01/15 Page1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case:-cv-0-JCS Document Filed0/0/ Page of KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP Karl S. Kronenberger (Bar No. ) Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld (Bar No. ) Ansel J. Halliburton (Bar No. 0) 0 Post Street, Suite 0 San Francisco,

More information

Case 3:13-cv-01686-JBA Document 1 Filed 11/14/13 Page 1 of 10

Case 3:13-cv-01686-JBA Document 1 Filed 11/14/13 Page 1 of 10 Case 313-cv-01686-JBA Document 1 Filed 11/14/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Renee Wheeler, Individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,

More information

Filing # 22009228 Electronically Filed 12/29/2014 03:48:06 PM

Filing # 22009228 Electronically Filed 12/29/2014 03:48:06 PM Filing # 22009228 Electronically Filed 12/29/2014 03:48:06 PM PENELOPE BELVOIR, as Executor de son Tort for the Pending Estate of Robert Belvoir, Deceased, vs. Plaintiff, ROPES COURSES, INC., FB ORLANDO

More information

Case 1:13-cv-10524 Document 1 Filed 03/07/13 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 1:13-cv-10524 Document 1 Filed 03/07/13 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Case 1:13-cv-10524 Document 1 Filed 03/07/13 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Patricia Boudreau, Alex Gray, ) And Bobby Negron ) On Behalf of Themselves and All

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. WEBVIPER, LLC; d/b/a Yellow Web Services; and TIGERHAWK, LLC; d/b/a Yellow

More information

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 (303) 271-6145 Plaintiffs: NORMAN NEWELL and LINDA NEWELL, v. Defendants: COURT USE ONLY APRIA HEALTHCARE, INC.;

More information

Case 1:12-cv-01374-RJJ Doc #28 Filed 06/10/13 Page 1 of 15 Page ID#165 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Case 1:12-cv-01374-RJJ Doc #28 Filed 06/10/13 Page 1 of 15 Page ID#165 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Case 1:12-cv-01374-RJJ Doc #28 Filed 06/10/13 Page 1 of 15 Page ID#165 CHRISTOPHER FRANKE, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN -vs- Case No. 12-1374 Hon. Robert

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY FLORIDA. Case No.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY FLORIDA. Case No. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY FLORIDA SUZANNE MATTEIS, Plaintiff, DARDEN CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation. v. Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL

More information

Case 0:13-cv-61747-RSR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 9

Case 0:13-cv-61747-RSR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 9 Case 0:13-cv-61747-RSR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 0:13-cv-61747-RSR KURT S. SOTO, an individual, on behalf

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII. Case No.: CV-06-00~CK-LEK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII. Case No.: CV-06-00~CK-LEK MARY A. WILKOWSKI 4622 304C Iolani Avenue Honolulu, Hawai 96813 Telephone: (808) 536-5444 FacsImile: (808) 591-2990 E-Mail: maw808@aol.com Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenor DORIS F ALETOI UNITED STATES

More information

CASE 0:12-cv-02397-RHK-TNL Document 1 Filed 09/14/12 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE 0:12-cv-02397-RHK-TNL Document 1 Filed 09/14/12 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE 0:12-cv-02397-RHK-TNL Document 1 Filed 09/14/12 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA QUALITY BICYCLE PRODUCTS, INC. v. Plaintiff, BIKEBARON, LLC SINCLAIR IMPORTS, LLC and

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION Andrew W. Stavros (8615) Austin B. Egan (13203) STAVROS LAW P.C. 11693 South 700 East, Suite 200 Draper, Utah 84020 Tel: (801) 758.7604 Fax: (801) 893.3573 Email: andy@stavroslaw.com austin@stavroslaw.com

More information

) CIVIL NO. v. ) WORLD CLASS NETWORK, INC., ) a Nevada corporation; ) COMPLAINT FOR ) RELIEF. DANIEL R. DIMACALE, an individual; )

) CIVIL NO. v. ) WORLD CLASS NETWORK, INC., ) a Nevada corporation; ) COMPLAINT FOR ) RELIEF. DANIEL R. DIMACALE, an individual; ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 STEPHEN CALKINS General Counsel ANN I. JONES RAYMOND E. McKOWN Federal Trade Commission 100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite Los Angeles, California 00 ( -00 JOHN ANDREW SINGER Federal Trade Commission

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION and JOHN J. HOFFMAN, Acting Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, and STEVE C. LEE, Acting Director of the New

More information

Case 1:15-cv-02739-WYD-MEH Document 1 Filed 12/17/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:15-cv-02739-WYD-MEH Document 1 Filed 12/17/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case 1:15-cv-02739-WYD-MEH Document 1 Filed 12/17/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. CLEAR SKIES NEVADA, LLC, a Nevada Limited

More information

Case 3:14-cv-01824-M Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1

Case 3:14-cv-01824-M Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1 Case 3:14-cv-01824-M Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION BEST LITTLE PROMOHOUSE IN TEXAS LLC, Plaintiffs,

More information

Case 1:10-cv-00168-JBS -KMW Document 1 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 1:10-cv-00168-JBS -KMW Document 1 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 1:10-cv-00168-JBS -KMW Document 1 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY SMART VENT INC., : : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION NO.: : : : USA FLOODAIR VENTS,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPlAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPlAINT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION ZOIS FILED JUL -I A 10: 38 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Plaintiff, v. Intersections Inc., Defendant.

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SOMEWHERE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SOMEWHERE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Harvey C. Berger (SBN POPE & BERGER 0 West "C" Street, Suite 100 San Diego, California 1 Telephone: (1-1 Facsimile: (1 - Attorneys for Plaintiff PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND

More information

Case 3:11-cv-00545-RCJ-WGC Document 96 Filed 12/18/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Case 3:11-cv-00545-RCJ-WGC Document 96 Filed 12/18/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Case 3:11-cv-00545-RCJ-WGC Document 96 Filed 12/18/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA HOWARD L. HOWELL, Lead Plaintiff, ELLISA PANCOE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others

More information

2:12-cv-12969-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/06/12 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

2:12-cv-12969-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/06/12 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION 2:12-cv-12969-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/06/12 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION LAWANDA SALISBURY, Plaintiff, v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. Defendants.

More information

COMPLAINT. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF] hereby sues the Defendants, [DEFENDANT #1], [DEFENDANT INTRODUCTION

COMPLAINT. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF] hereby sues the Defendants, [DEFENDANT #1], [DEFENDANT INTRODUCTION Form 2:40-2 Complaint Negligence, Motor Vehicle IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ## JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR [COUNTY], FLORIDA [PLAINTIFF], Plaintiff, CASE NO.: ##-##### ## ## GENERAL JURISDICTION vs. [DEFENDANT

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 Robert S. Green (SBN ) James Robert Noblin (SBN ) GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C. -and- Telephone: Email: William B. Federman FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD Telephone: Email:

More information

Case: 1:15-cv-09957 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

Case: 1:15-cv-09957 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1 Case: 1:15-cv-09957 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1 JACLYN PAZERA Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION v. Case No.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ACQIS LLC, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP., Case No. 6:11-CV-546 Jury Trial Demanded

More information

Case 2:13-cv-00279-TOR Document 1 Filed 07/30/13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Case 2:13-cv-00279-TOR Document 1 Filed 07/30/13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 0 JONATHAN E. NUECHTERLEIN General Counsel ROBERT J. SCHROEDER Regional Director NADINE SAMTER, WA Bar # JENNIFER LARABEE, CA Bar # nd Ave., Suite Seattle, WA ( 0- (Samter; ( 0-0 (Larabee Email: nsamter@ftc.gov;

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Bryana Bible, SECOND AMENDED CLASS Plaintiff, Court File No. 12-cv-01236-RHK-JSM INTRODUCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Bryana Bible, SECOND AMENDED CLASS Plaintiff, Court File No. 12-cv-01236-RHK-JSM INTRODUCTION CASE 0:12-cv-01236-RHK-JSM Document 50 Filed 04/01/13 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Bryana Bible, SECOND AMENDED CLASS Plaintiff, ACTION COMPLAINT v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION Case 6:10-cv-00557 Document 1 Filed 10/21/10 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION TRANSDATA, INC., Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 6:10-cv-557

More information

GRAY, L.L.C. 760 ROUTE 10 WEST, SUITE 203 WHIPPANY, NEW JERSEY 07981 PH: 973-240-7313 F: 973-240-7316 Attorneys for Plaintiff Henry Kent

GRAY, L.L.C. 760 ROUTE 10 WEST, SUITE 203 WHIPPANY, NEW JERSEY 07981 PH: 973-240-7313 F: 973-240-7316 Attorneys for Plaintiff Henry Kent POMPELIO, FOREMAN & GRAY, L.L.C. 760 ROUTE 10 WEST, SUITE 203 WHIPPANY, NEW JERSEY 07981 PH: 973-240-7313 F: 973-240-7316 Attorneys for Plaintiff Henry Kent HENRY KENT, vs. Plaintiff, SMILES II RESTAURANT,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE NO. Defendant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE NO. Defendant William D. Marler Marler Clark LLP PS 01 Second Ave, Suite 00 Seattle, WA 1-0 Ph: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE DOROTHY H. PEARCE, vs. Plaintiff,

More information

Plaintiffs Steve Yourke and Kristin Richards ( Plaintiffs ), on behalf of themselves and

Plaintiffs Steve Yourke and Kristin Richards ( Plaintiffs ), on behalf of themselves and 1 1 Plaintiffs Steve Yourke and Kristin Richards ( Plaintiffs ), on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated United States residents, allege the following: INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil action

More information

- "'. --, ,-~ ') " UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. Federal Trade Commission,

- '. --, ,-~ ')  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. Federal Trade Commission, - "'. --, -.:li ') " :::; ),-~ --' DA VlD SHONKA Acting General Counsel 2 BARBARA Y.K. CHUN, Cal. BarNo. 0 3 JOHN D. JACOBS, Cal. Bar No. 1344 Federal Trade Commission 4 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 00 Los Angeles,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DEFENDANT S ANSWER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DEFENDANT S ANSWER Case 1:14-cv-05919-JEI-KMW Document 19 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 84 Frank L. Corrado, Esquire Attorney ID No. 022221983 BARRY, CORRADO & GRASSI, PC 2700 Pacific Avenue Wildwood, NJ 08260 (609)

More information

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED,

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, STEPHEN CALKINS General Counsel CAROLE A. PAYNTER (CP 4091) Federal Trade Commission 150 William Street, 13th floor New York, New York 10038 (212) 264-1225 Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT

More information

Complaint as permitted by Case Management Order # 4 and Implementing Order PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Complaint as permitted by Case Management Order # 4 and Implementing Order PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE [INSERT NAME], Plaintiff(s) vs. HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORPORATION, a New Jersey Corporation, d/b/a STRYKER ORTHOPAEDICS, JILL DOE MANUFACTURERS (1-10), JACK DOE WHOLESALERS (1-10), JAKE DOE SELLERS (1-10),

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA BROWARD DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No.: COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA BROWARD DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No.: COMPLAINT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA BROWARD DIVISION NANCY PRITCHARD, v. Plaintiff, Case No.: KAPLAN HIGHER EDUCATION CORPORATION; KAPLAN HIGHER EDUCATION CORPORATION, as PLAN ADMINISTRATOR;

More information

Case3:11-cv-00043-RS Document34 Filed07/28/11 Page1 of 8

Case3:11-cv-00043-RS Document34 Filed07/28/11 Page1 of 8 Case:-cv-000-RS Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 Sean Reis (SBN 00 sreis@edelson.com EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLP 00 Tomas Street, Suite 00 Rancho Santa Margarita, California Telephone: ( - Facsimile: ( - Michael

More information

Case4:15-cv-04219-DMR Document1 Filed09/16/15 Page1 of 11

Case4:15-cv-04219-DMR Document1 Filed09/16/15 Page1 of 11 Case:-cv-0-DMR Document Filed0// Page of MICHAEL G. RHODES () (rhodesmg@cooley.com) California Street, th Floor San Francisco, CA Telephone: Facsimile: BRENDAN J. HUGHES (pro hac vice to be filed) (bhughes@cooley.com)

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. INFANT SWIMMING RESEARCH, INC., v. Plaintiff, FAEGRE & BENSON, LLP, MARK FISCHER, JUDY HEUMANN, NORMAN HEUMANN, BOULDER

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, WEST DISTRICT 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, WEST DISTRICT 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 JAMES W. JOHNSTON ATTORNEY AT LAW 00 S. Flower Street, Suite 10 Los Angeles, California 001 State Bar No. (1) 1- Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,

More information

Case 1:16-cv-00320-CBA-PK Document 1 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 1:16-cv-00320-CBA-PK Document 1 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case 116-cv-00320-CBA-PK Document 1 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID # 1 Frank J. Martinez (FJM-2149) THE MARTINEZ GROUP PLLC 55 Washington Street, Suite 253-C Brooklyn, New York 11201 718.797.2341 Telephone

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA David W. Lincicum (California Bar No. 223566) Burke W. Kappler (D.C. Bar No. 471936) Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mail Stop NJ-8122 Washington, D.C. 20580 dlincicum@ftc.gov bkappler@ftc.gov

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA 1 TERRY GODDARD The Attorney General Firm No. 00 Sandra R. Kane, No. 00 Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division 1 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 00 Telephone: (0) - CivilRights@azag.gov Attorneys

More information

FILED 2012 Dec-05 PM 04:01 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA

FILED 2012 Dec-05 PM 04:01 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA Case 2:12-cv-04033-JEO Document 1 Filed 12/05/12 Page 1 of 11 FILED 2012 Dec-05 PM 04:01 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION RPOST HOLDINGS, INC., RPOST COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, and RMAIL LIMITED, CIVIL ACTION NO. Plaintiffs, v. ADOBE SYSTEMS

More information

* Each Will Comply With LR IA 10 2 Within 45 days Attorneys for Plaintiff, Goldman, Sachs & Co.

* Each Will Comply With LR IA 10 2 Within 45 days Attorneys for Plaintiff, Goldman, Sachs & Co. Case :-cv-00-lrh -WGC Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Stanley W. Parry Esq. Nevada Bar No. Jon T. Pearson, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 0 BALLARD SPAHR LLP 00 North City Parkway, Suite 0 Las Vegas, NV 0 Telephone:

More information

vs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff JAMES SCHAIRER, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby sues

vs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff JAMES SCHAIRER, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby sues IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE th 16 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO. JAMES SCHAIRER, individually, Plaintiff, vs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PAUL KERCHER,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 WILLIAM E. KOVACIC General Counsel KATHERINE ROMANO SCHNACK THERESE L. TULLY Federal Trade Commission East Monroe Street, Suite Chicago, Illinois 00 (1 0- [Ph.] (1 0-00 [Fax] FAYE CHEN

More information

Case 3:10-cv-02236-DRD Document 31 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 9

Case 3:10-cv-02236-DRD Document 31 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 9 Case 3:10-cv-02236-DRD Document 31 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO DAVID ASHE Plaintiff, CIVIL NO. 10-2236 ( DRD ) vs. DISTRIBUIDORA NORMA,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION Case 4:13-cv-00594 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Civ. No.: VERMA HOLDINGS,

More information