1 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THOMAS ROBINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPOKEO, INC., a California corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No D.C. No. 2:10-cv ODW-AGR OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 6, 2013 Pasadena, California Filed February 4, 2014 Before: Diarmuid F. O Scannlain, Susan P. Graber, and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge O Scannlain
2 2 ROBINS V. SPOKEO, INC. SUMMARY * Standing / Fair Credit Reporting Act The panel reversed the district court s dismissal, based on lack of Article III standing, of an action alleging willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The panel held that the individual plaintiff had Article III standing to sue a website s operator under the Fair Credit Reporting Act for publishing inaccurate personal information about himself. The panel also held that law of the case did not limit the district court in its final order, and it was free to reconsider its own prior ruling on standing, where the district court had neither been divested of jurisdiction nor submitted this case to the jury. COUNSEL Steven Woodrow, Edelson LLC, Denver, Colorado, argued the cause for the plaintiff-appellant. Bradley M. Baglien, Edelson LLC, Chicago, Illinois, filed the briefs for the plaintiff-appellant. With him on the briefs were Jay Edelson, Edelson, LLC, Chicago, Illinois, and Rafey S. Balabanian, Edelson LLC, Chicago, Illinois. Donald M. Falk, Mayer Brown LLP, Palo Alto, California, argued the cause for the defendant-appellee. John Nadolenco, Mayer Brown LLC, Los Angeles, California, filed the brief * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
3 ROBINS V. SPOKEO, INC. 3 for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief was Barrett L. Schreiner, Mayer Brown LLP, Los Angeles, California. Meir Feder, Jones Day, New York, New York, filed the brief on behalf of amicus curiae Experian Information Solutions, Inc in support of the defendant-appellee. A. James Chareq, Hudson Cook, LLP, Washington, D.C., filed the brief on behalf of amicus curiae Consumer Data Industry Association in support of the defendant-appellee. OPINION O SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge: We must decide whether an individual has Article III standing to sue a website s operator under the Fair Credit Reporting Act for publishing inaccurate personal information about himself. I Spokeo, Inc. operates a website that provides users with information about other individuals, including contact data, marital status, age, occupation, economic health, and wealth level. Thomas Robins sued Spokeo for willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C et seq., related to its website. Although he asserted that Spokeo s website contained false information about him, Robins s allegations of injury were sparse. Spokeo moved to dismiss Robins s original complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the ground that Robins lacked standing sufficient under Article III of the United States Constitution.
4 4 ROBINS V. SPOKEO, INC. On January 27, 2011, the district court ruled that Robins had failed to allege an injury in fact because he had not alleged any actual or imminent harm. The court characterized Robins s allegations as simply that he has been unsuccessful in seeking employment, and that he is concerned that the inaccuracies in his report will affect his ability to obtain credit, employment, insurance, and the like. The district court noted that [a]llegations of possible future injury do not satisfy the [standing] requirements of Art. III and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Robins thereafter filed his First Amended Complaint (FAC). Similar to the original complaint, the FAC alleged willful violations of the FCRA. For example, the website allegedly described Robins as holding a graduate degree and as wealthy, both of which are alleged to be untrue. Robins, who is unemployed, described the misinformation as caus[ing] actual harm to [his] employment prospects. Remaining unemployed has cost Robins money as well as caused anxiety, stress, concern, and/or worry about his diminished employment prospects. Again, Spokeo moved to dismiss for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction on the ground that Robins lacked standing under Article III. On May 11, the district court denied the motion and concluded that Robins had alleged a sufficient injury in fact, namely Spokeo s marketing of inaccurate consumer reporting information about Robins. The court also ruled that the injury was traceable to Spokeo s alleged violations of the FCRA and that the injury was redressable through a favorable court decision. On September 19, after Spokeo moved to certify an interlocutory appeal, the district court reconsidered its
5 ROBINS V. SPOKEO, INC. 5 previous ruling on standing. It then ruled, contrary to its May 11 order, that Robins failed to plead an injury in fact and that any injuries pled were not traceable to Spokeo s alleged violations, dismissing the action. Robins timely appealed. II On appeal, Robins first argues that the law-of-the-case doctrine prohibited the district court from revisiting its own May 11 decision. In United States v. Smith, however, we held that the law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply to circumstances where a district court seeks to reconsider an order over which it has not been divested of jurisdiction. 389 F.3d 944, 949 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (describing the doctrine as wholly inapposite ). In this case, the district court was not divested of jurisdiction prior to its September 19 order. Although United States v. Alexander held that the law-ofthe-case doctrine precluded a district court from reconsidering an evidentiary issue after a mistrial, 106 F.3d 874, (9th Cir. 1997), we distinguished Alexander in Smith and do so again here. The rule from Alexander applies only to cases in which a submission to the jury separates the two decisions. See Smith, 389 F.3d at (distinguishing Alexander on the ground that the district court in that case had reconsidered its decision only after submitting the case to a jury). Here, because the district court had neither been divested of jurisdiction nor submitted this case to the jury, it was free to reconsider its own prior ruling. The law-of-the-case doctrine did not limit the district court.
6 6 ROBINS V. SPOKEO, INC. III Robins next argues that the FAC sufficiently alleges Article III standing and that the May 11 ruling was correct. 1 The FAC indeed alleges violations of various statutory provisions. See 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(1) (listing the circumstances in which consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) may provide consumer reports for employment purposes ); id. 1681e(b) (requiring CRAs to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of consumer reports); id. 1681e(d) (requiring CRAs to issue notices to providers and users of information); id. 1681j(a) (requiring CRAs to post toll-free telephone numbers to allow consumers to request consumer reports). Robins contends that because these provisions are enforceable through a private cause of action, see id. 1681n, they create statutory rights that he has standing to vindicate in court. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500 (1975) ( The actual or threatened injury required by Art[icle] III may exist solely by virtue of statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing. (internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court properly recognized that it would not have subject-matter jurisdiction if Robins did not have standing. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 1 Spokeo briefly responds that the FAC pleads no facts from which an inference of willfulness might be drawn. We disagree. [W]illful violations within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1681n include violations in reckless disregard of statutory duty. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 57 (2007). The facts that Robins pled make it plausible that Spokeo acted in reckless disregard of duties created by the FCRA. Robins pled, among other things, that Spokeo knew about inaccuracies in its reports and marketed its reports for purposes covered by the FCRA despite disclaiming any such uses.
7 ROBINS V. SPOKEO, INC (2006). The district court also correctly identified the three components of standing: (1) the plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical ; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant ; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, (2000). Although more may be required at later stages of the litigation, on a motion to dismiss, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant s conduct may suffice. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). A In standing cases that analyze statutory rights, our precedent establishes two propositions. First, Congress s creation of a private cause of action to enforce a statutory provision implies that Congress intended the enforceable provision to create a statutory right. See Fulfillment Servs. Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 528 F.3d 614, 619 (9th Cir. 2008). Second, the violation of a statutory right is usually a sufficient injury in fact to confer standing. See Edwards v. First Am. Corp., 610 F.3d 514, 517 (9th Cir. 2010) ( Essentially, the standing question in such cases is whether the constitutional or statutory provision on which the claim rests properly can be understood as granting persons in the plaintiff s position a right to judicial relief. ); Fulfillment Servs., 528 F.3d at 619 (same). Spokeo contends, however, that Robins cannot sue under the FCRA without showing actual harm. But the statutory cause of action does not require a showing of actual harm
8 8 ROBINS V. SPOKEO, INC. when a plaintiff sues for willful violations. 15 U.S.C. 1681n(a) ( Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to... damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1, ); see also Beaudry v. TeleCheck Servs., Inc., 579 F.3d 702, (6th Cir. 2009) (ruling that the FCRA permits a recovery when there are no identifiable or measurable actual damages ); Murray v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., 434 F.3d 948, (7th Cir. 2006) (ruling that the FCRA provide[s] for modest damages without proof of injury ). 2 The scope of the cause of action determines the scope of the implied statutory right. See Edwards, 610 F.3d at 517 ( Because the statutory text does not limit liability to instances in which a plaintiff is overcharged, we hold that Plaintiff has established an injury sufficient to satisfy Article III. ). When, as here, the statutory cause of action does not require proof of actual damages, a plaintiff can suffer a violation of the statutory right without suffering actual damages. 2 Spokeo urges that such interpretation of the FCRA would raise serious constitutional issues, suggesting that we should adopt the contrary reading, which the Eighth Circuit has described as reasonable. See Dowell v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 517 F.3d 1024, 1026 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (noting that one reasonable reading of the [FCRA] could still require proof of actual damages but simply substitute statutory rather than actual damages for the purpose of calculating the damage award ). We are not persuaded. As we explain below, our reading of the FCRA does not raise difficult constitutional questions. That our sister circuit has described Spokeo s reading as reasonable, without actually ruling on the best interpretation of the statutory text, is of little consequence here.
9 ROBINS V. SPOKEO, INC. 9 B Of course, the Constitution limits the power of Congress to confer standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 577 (refusing [t]o permit Congress to convert the undifferentiated public interest in executive officers compliance with the law into an individual right vindicable in the courts ); id. at 580 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) ( The Court s holding that there is an outer limit to the power of Congress to confer rights of action is a direct and necessary consequence of the case and controversy limitations found in Article III. ). This constitutional limit, however, does not prohibit Congress from elevating to the status of legally cognizable injuries concrete, de facto injuries that were previously inadequate in law. Id. at 578 (majority opinion). The issue before us is whether violations of statutory rights created by the FCRA are concrete, de facto injuries that Congress can so elevate. We are not the first Court of Appeals to face this question. In Beaudry, the Sixth Circuit considered whether an FCRA plaintiff suing under 15 U.S.C. 1681n had sufficiently alleged an injury in fact by alleging a violation of the FCRA. 579 F.3d at 707. The court identified two constitutional limitations on congressional power to confer standing. First, a plaintiff must be among the injured, in the sense that she alleges the defendants violated her statutory rights. Id. Second, the statutory right at issue must protect against individual, rather than collective, harm. Id. The Beaudry court held that the plaintiff satisfied both of these requirements. Id. Robins is in the same position. First, he alleges that Spokeo violated his statutory rights, not just the statutory
10 10 ROBINS V. SPOKEO, INC. rights of other people, so he is among the injured. Second, the interests protected by the statutory rights at issue are sufficiently concrete and particularized that Congress can elevate them. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 578. Like an individual s personal interest in living in a racially integrated community or a company s interest in marketing its product free from competition, Robins s personal interests in the handling of his credit information are individualized rather than collective. Id. (describing two concrete, de facto injuries that Congress could elevat[e] to the status of legally cognizable injuries ). Therefore, alleged violations of Robins s statutory rights are sufficient to satisfy the injury-infact requirement of Article III. C In addition to injury in fact, of course, standing requires causation and redressability. See Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at Where statutory rights are asserted, however, our cases have described the standing inquiry as boiling down to essentially the injury-in-fact prong. See Edwards, 610 F.3d at 517; Fulfillment Servs., 528 F.3d at When the injury in fact is the violation of a statutory right that we inferred from the existence of a private cause of action, causation and redressability will usually be satisfied. First, there is little doubt that a defendant s alleged violation of a statutory provision caused the violation of a right created by that provision. Second, statutes like the FCRA frequently provide for monetary damages, which redress the violation of statutory rights. See Jewel v. Nat l Sec. Agency, 673 F.3d 902, 912 (9th Cir. 2011) (ruling that there was no real question about redressability when a plaintiff sought an injunction and damages, either of which is an available
11 ROBINS V. SPOKEO, INC. 11 remedy ). Therefore, Robins has adequately pled causation and redressability in this case. 3 IV For the foregoing reasons, Robins adequately alleges Article III standing. 4 REVERSED AND REMANDED. 3 Because we determine that Robins has standing by virtue of the alleged violations of his statutory rights, we do not decide whether harm to his employment prospects or related anxiety could be sufficient injuries in fact. 4 Because standing is the only question before us, we do not intimate any opinion on the merits of this case. We do not decide, for example, whether Spokeo qualifies as a consumer reporting agency or whether Spokeo actually violated the FCRA.
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN FAULKNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC.; ADT SECURITY
Case 1:14-cv-01265-JEB Document 17 Filed 09/23/14 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INGA L. PARSONS, et al., Plaintiffs, Civ. No. 14-1265 (JEB v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO
Case 211-cv-03070-WHW -MCA Document 17 Filed 09/26/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID 199 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY KERRY FEDER, on behalf of herself and the putative class, Plaintiffs, WILLIAMS-SONOMA
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHRISTOPHER AYDEN BREWSTER, individually, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUN TRUST MORTGAGE, INC., Defendant, No. 12-56560 D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00448-
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 03 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STOP THE CASINO 101 COALITION; ROBERT AHERNE; AMY BOYD; LISA CATELANI;
NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 14-3981 THE RESIDENCES AT BAY POINT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a TRAVELERS INDMNITY
Case 3:15-cv-00333-JLH Document 39 Filed 04/13/16 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION NUCOR STEEL-ARKANSAS; and NUCOR-YAMATO STEEL COMPANY PLAINTIFFS
Case: 12-16291 Date Filed: 06/17/2013 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-16291 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cv-61429-RSR MICHAEL
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JAMES D. FOWLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No.: 08-cv-2785 ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Judge Robert M. Dow,
Case: 12-16065 Date Filed: 09/19/2013 Page: 1 of 20 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-16065 D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cv-14312-KMM BETTY BOLLINGER, versus
2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DONALD LYLE STRATTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JULIE BUCK, in her individual capacity; DALE BROWN, in his individual capacity; JOHN DOE,
Case :-cv-000-kjm -DAD Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 DWIGHT WHITAKER; et al., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiffs, No. CIV S--00 KJM-DAD vs. HEALTH NET
ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court Hart v. Kieu Le, 2013 IL App (2d) 121380 Appellate Court Caption LYNETTE Y. HART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOAN KIEU LE, Defendant-Appellee. District & No. Second
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOEL JOHNSON, a single person, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Case: 14-4173 Document: 003112102053 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 14-4173 MICHAEL J. MANDELBROT; MANDELBROT LAW FIRM, v. Appellants
Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JAMES MEYER, v. Plaintiff, DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS
Case 2:05-cv-00268-JES-SPC Document 14 Filed 08/09/05 Page 1 of 6 PageID 59 TONY LUCIBELLO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2:05-cv-268-FtM-29SPC
Todd Lindquist Student Fellow, Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD Expected 2005 The controversy in Trinko involved the interplay between the Telecommunications
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION COLIN SPEER, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO: 8:14-cv-3035-T-26TBM WHOLE FOOD MARKET
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
Case 8:13-cv-01292-DOC-JCG Document 70 Filed 08/27/14 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:1073 Title: JACOB PETERSEN V. TOWNSEND FARMS INC. ET AL. PRESENT: THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE Julie Barrera Courtroom
Case: 14-60087 Document: 00512938717 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED February 18, 2015 SUPERIOR
CLIENT MEMORANDUM FEDERAL CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT HEIGHTENED PLEADING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO FALSE MARKING ACTIONS In a decision that will likely reduce the number of false marking cases, the Federal Circuit
Case :-cv-00-kjd-pal Document Filed // Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA SERGIO A. MEDINA, v. Plaintiff, QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Case No. -CV-00-KJD-PAL
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DENIS SHEILS AND HARRIET SHEILS : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 97-5510 MEDICAL CENTER, : JANET RENO,
Case: 14-10001 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 1 of 13 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-10001 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 0:13-cv-61759-WPD SOUTH FLORIDA
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 28 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PORTFOLIO INVESTMENTS LLC, a Washington limited liability corporation;
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 07-1019 APEX DIGITAL, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District
Case :0-cv-000-RCJ-PAL Document Filed 0//0 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 0 0 STEVEN FERGUSON, Plaintiff, vs. SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS GOLF CLUB, LLC SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS/CHRISTOPHER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SOUTH HILLS AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, et al., CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs, v. No. 13-7457 VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA LLC, et al., Defendants.
Case :-cv-00-rsm Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CGI TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLUTIONS, INC., in its capacity as sponsor and fiduciary for CGI
Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB ERNA GANSER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT
Case :0-cv-0-GEB -GGH Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 EDITH STONE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) :0-cv-0-GEB-KJM ) v. ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS
Case 8:10-cv-02549-EAJ Document 20 Filed 11/01/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID 297 TORREY CRAIG, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION vs. Case No.: 8:10-CV-2549-T-EAJ
2015 IL App (1st) 141179-U THIRD DIVISION May 20, 2015 No. 1-14-1179 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
Case 3:13-cv-03236-K Document 71 Filed 08/21/15 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1461 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action
Case 4:05-cv-04026-JLH Document 34 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION JOYCE BEASLEY, et al. PLAINTIFFS vs. CASE NO. 05-4026 PRUDENTIAL
Determining Jurisdiction for Patent Law Malpractice Cases This article originally appeared in The Legal Intelligencer on May 1, 2013 As an intellectual property attorney, the federal jurisdiction of patent-related
Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Goodwyn, JJ., and Lacy, S.J. SHERMAN WHITAKER v. Record No. 071197 OPINION BY SENIOR JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY June 6, 2008 HEINRICH SCHEPERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION SOUTH BAY PLANTATION CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a not for profit corporation also known as SOUTH BAY PLANTATION ASSOCIATES,
Case: 13-10468 Document: 00512523153 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED February 5, 2014 In the
ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court Fifth Third Mortgage Co. v. Foster, 2013 IL App (1st) 121361 Appellate Court Caption FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TAMARA FOSTER, Defendant-Appellant.
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID H. LUTHER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING
2015 IL App (1st 142304-U SECOND DIVISION May 5, 2015 No. 1-14-2304 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
Case 4:05-cv-00008-JAJ-RAW Document 80 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION EARL A. POWELL, In the name of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
BLD-017 NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 09-337 DMITRI GORBATY, Appellant v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC On Appeal from the United States District
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. NITEK ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendant-Appellee 2015-1166 Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 20, 2010 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court LORRIE LOGSDON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. TURBINES,
USCA Case #12-5117 Document #1394950 Filed: 09/18/2012 Page 1 of 5 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 12-5117 September Term, 2012 FILED ON: SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 CENTER
RONALD WARRUM, in his capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of JOSEPH F. SAYYAH, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. No. 04-3753 UNITED STATES COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DEAN SMITH, on behalf of himself and Others similarly situated, v. Michael Harrison, Esquire, Plaintiff, Defendant. OPINION Civ. No. 07-4255 (WHW) Walls,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA DANVILLE DIVISION LOIS LORRAINE ADKINS, Plaintiff, v. CYTYC CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Case No. 4:07CV00053 MEMORANDUM OPINION
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
12-1484-cv Hyde v. KLS Professional Advisors Group, LLC UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY OPINION BY JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, v. Record No. 951919 September
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 12-408 JAMES K. MEADOR V. APPELLANT T O T A L C O M P L I A N C E CONSULTANTS, INC., AND BILL MEDLEY APPELLEES Opinion Delivered January 31, 2013 APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY
Case: 1:10-cv-08146 Document #: 27 Filed: 06/29/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:342 TKK USA INC., f/k/a The Thermos Company, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re: BAYCOL PRODUCTS LITIGATION MDL No. 1431 (MJD) This Document also relates to: Barbara Ruona, et al., v. Bayer Corporation et al., Case No. 02-872
2015 IL App (1st) 141310-U FIRST DIVISION October 5, 2015 No. 1-14-1310 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
Supreme Court Decision Affirming Judicial Right to Review EEOC Actions The Supreme Court Holds That EEOC s Conciliation Efforts Are Subject to Judicial Review, Albeit Narrow SUMMARY A unanimous Supreme
Case: 14-12977 Date Filed: 08/28/2015 Page: 1 of 11 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-12977 D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cv-00177-CDL JASON M. COX, Plaintiff
ELBERT KIRBY, JR.; CALEB MEADOWS, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT February 5, 2016 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. Plaintiffs - Appellants,
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICHARD REYES, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., a corporation,
Case :0-cv-0-JSW Document Filed 0//00 Page of GOLDENE SOMERVILLE, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 Plaintiff, No. C 0-0 JSW v. STRYKER ORTHOPAEDICS ET AL, Defendants.
Case 1:09-cv-21435-MGC Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2011 Page 1 of 6 E. JENNIFER NEWMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 09-21435-Civ-COOKE/TURNOFF vs. Plaintiff
Case 1:12-cv-01488-GK Document 43 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL -- ---------- ------AGENCY-,-INC-.-,--- Plaintiff, v. Civil
Case: -0 Document: 0- Page: 0//0 0-0-cv In re: Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
Case 1:05-cv-00634-SEB-VSS Document 13 Filed 05/20/2005 Page 1 of 10 United States District Court Southern District Of Indiana Indianapolis Division INDIANA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, ) and MARION COUNTY ) DEMOCRATIC
Case 8:13-cv-01731-VMC-TBM Document 36 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 134 JOHN and JOANNA ROBERTS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 8:13-cv-1731-T-33TBM
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1362 James Joyce, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Armstrong Teasdale,
Page 1 29 of 41 DOCUMENTS SAN DIEGO ASSEMBLERS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WORK COMP FOR LESS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Respondent. D062406 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE
Case: 10-10122 Date Filed: 06/30/2010 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 10-10122 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 2:08-cv-00667-RDP PRINCIPAL
No. 3 09 0033 Filed December 16, 2009 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2009 KEPPLE AND COMPANY, INC., ) Appeal from the Circuit Court an Illinois Corporation, ) of the 10th Judicial
Case 2:06-cv-02026-CM Document 104 Filed 01/23/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. No. 06-2026-CM
NO. COA12-1176 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 2 April 2013 BOBBY ANGLIN, Plaintiff, v. Mecklenburg County No. 12 CVS 1143 DUNBAR ARMORED, INC. AND GALLAGER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., Defendants. Liens
1 JEREMY JEPSON, on behalf of himself and a Class of all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, TICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT
Case 3:06-cv-01710-JCH Document 87 Filed 04/19/007 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT DOCTOR S ASSOCIATES, INC., : Plaintiff : : CIVIL ACTION NO. v. : 3:06-cv-1710
Case :0-cv-00-GMN-LRL Document 0 Filed 0//0 Page of 0 Michael J. McCue (NV Bar No. 0 Nikkya G. Williams (NV Bar No. Telephone: (0-0 Facsimile: (0 - Attorneys for Defendants Jan Klerks and Stichting Wolkenkrabbers
Case: 10-10823 Date Filed: 10/13/2010 Page: 1 of 7 [PUBLISH] CARLOS SHURICK, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 10-10823 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 6:07-cv-01974-GAP-GJK
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ARNOLD L. MESHKOV, M.D., : Plaintiff : : v. : 01-CV-2586 : UNUM PROVIDENT CORP., et al., : Defendants : EXPLANATION AND ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION VISTA MARKETING, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:12-cv-1640-T-30TBM TERRI A. BURKETT and JOSEPH R. PARK, Defendants. / ORDER THIS CAUSE
2012 IL App (1st) 120754-U FIRST DIVISION December 3, 2012 No. 1-12-0754 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
Case: 12-16445 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-16445 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cv-01343-JDW-EAJ [DO NOT PUBLISH]
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.