Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fee

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fee"

Transcription

1 Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fee The Benton-Franklin County Bar Association s 9 th Annual Federal Civil Trial Practice Seminar May 15, 2015 Erika Hartliep Staff Attorney USDC-Eastern District of Washington

2 JUDGE S BAD HAIRCUT LEADS TO SHEARING OF ATTORNEY S FEE By Erika Hartliep ERIKHARTLIEP THIS MATERIAL WAS PREPARED FOR USE AT THE 2015 BENTON- FRANKLIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION FEDERAL CIVIL TRIAL PRACTICE SEMINAR. It does not represent the policy or position of the Eastern District of Washington or any of its judges. Erika has served as Judge Shea s Staff Attorney, working on federal criminal and civil cases, since Erika graduated at the top of her University of Idaho Law School class, while participating in Law Review. She received her bachelor s degree in agricultural economics (summa cum laude) from Washington State University. When not at the courthouse, Erika enjoys time with her husband and two children, assisting with sports, church, and educational activities. Erika also serves as Vice President for the YMCA of the Greater Tri-Cities.

3 Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fees Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fee THIS MATERIAL WAS PREPARED FOR USE AT THE 2015 BENTON-FRANKLIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION FEDERAL CIVIL TRIAL PRACTICE SEMINAR. IT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE POLICY OR STANCE OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON OR ANY OF ITS JUDGES. The Ninth Circuit supports 10-percent haircuts. Specifically, it supports unexplained 10-percent trims to attorney-fee requests. The root of this unexplained cut is perplexing. And as recently as last year, this unexplained 10-percent trim continues to be permitted by the Ninth Circuit. This article begins by discussing U.S. Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit attorney-fee principles prior to The 2008 Moreno v. City of Sacramento decision, which appears to be the first time the Ninth Circuit permitted an unexplained 10-percent haircut to duplicative hours, is then analyzed. Next, subsequent Ninth Circuit decisions, including Gonzalez v. City of Maywood and Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, which extend Moreno s haircut from 10 percent of the duplicative hours to the lodestar, 1 are discussed. Finally, suggestions are offered for counsel when filing a motion for attorney s fee. Attorney-Fee Framework To appreciate the expanded power given to district courts in reducing attorney-fee requests, one must understand the process the court utilizes when calculating a reasonable attorney fee. When reviewing a prevailing party s attorney-fee motion, the district court engages in a two-step process. First, the district court calculates the lodestar. The lodestar is calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the successful claims (and those related to the successful claims) by the reasonable hourly rate for such tasks. During this first step s reasonable-hour assessment, the district court eliminates duplicative, excessive, and unnecessary hours, while also recognizing that the litigation process sometimes reasonably requires lawyers to duplicate tasks. Second, although there is a strong presumption that the lodestar is a reasonable fee, the district court considers whether an upward or a downward adjustment to the lodestar is appropriate to establish a reasonable attorney-fee award, i.e., an 1 The lodestar is the product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate. Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 565 (1986). The lodestar is presumed to be a reasonable rate. Mendez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 540 F.3d 1109, 1129 (9th Cir. 2008). 2 P a g e

4 Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fees attorney-fee award that is sufficient to induce a capable attorney to undertake the representation of the lawsuit, Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 552 (2010), and which reflects the level of success achieved by the prevailing party, A.D. v. Cal. Hwy. Patrol, 712 F.3d 446, 460 (9th Cir. 2013). The attorney s fee resulting from this two-step process is the to-be-awarded reasonable attorney s fee. What level of review of the attorney-fee filings does the district court engage in? Even if the attorney-fee request is unopposed, the district court has an independent obligation to review the record and ensure that the requested attorney s fee is reasonable. In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liability Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2011). The remainder of this article focuses on to what extent the district court must explain the basis for its attorney-fee award. On this point, a seminal case is Hensley v. Eckerhart. 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). In Hensley, the Supreme Court remanded an attorney-fee analysis back to the district court because the district court failed to calculate the lodestar or set forth a concise but clear explanation for why it awarded attorney s fees less than those requested. Id. at 437 (emphasis added). Hensley was applied by the Ninth Circuit in Gates v. Deukemjian. 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1992). In Gates, the district court (without explaining why a reasonable fee was achieved) accepted the requesting civil-rights plaintiffs proposed attorney-fee award, which included discrete hourly reductions as well as a 10-percent reduction to the lodestar to account for any duplicative hours apart from the discrete hourly reductions also applied. Id. at The Ninth Circuit reversed, remanding the matter to the district court to abide by Hensley s requirement to provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award, id. at 1398 (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437) (italics in Gates): [T]he district court is required to articulate not only the reasons for its findings regarding the propriety of the hours claimed or for any adjustments it makes either to the prevailing party s claimed hours or to the lodestar. Id. Yet, the Ninth Circuit mentioned that the concise but clear requirement can be satisfied by the district court either 1) making across-the-board percentage cuts either in the number of hours or in the final lodestar figure or 2) conducting an hour-by-hour analysis of the fee request. Id. at In regard to percentage cuts, the Ninth Circuit stated: Percentages indeed are acceptable, and perhaps necessary, tools for district courts fashioning reasonable fee awards. However, decisions of district courts employing percentages in cases involving large fee requests are subject to heightened scrutiny and the use of percentages, in any case, neither discharges the district court from its responsibility to set forth a concise but clear explanation for its reasons for choosing a given percentage reduction nor 3 P a g e

5 Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fees from its duty to independently review the applicant s fee request. Id. at 1400 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Gates requires the district court to review the record and provide a concise and clear explanation as to why it finds a reduction necessary to achieve a reasonable attorney-fee award. Id. at Following Gates, the Ninth Circuit in Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp. recognized that percentage reductions may be appropriate where much smaller fee awards are at stake, but only when the district court provides a reasonable explanation for the cut. 244 F.3d 1145, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis added; footnote omitted). The Ninth Circuit stated, Indeed, the practice of reducing fees without identifying the hours spent inefficiently or providing any explanation of the particular degree of reduction adopted is no more defensible in relatively straightforward cases such as this one than in complex cases such as Gates, for several reasons. Id. at The Ninth Circuit remanded the attorney-fee request under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to the district court because the district court did not explain why it reduced the number of hours by more than 50 percent. Time for a Hair Cut In 2008, the analysis of an attorney-fee petition changed. In Moreno v. City of Sacramento, the Ninth Circuit stopped requiring district courts to explain the basis for cutting requested hours by 10 percent beyond merely stating that the hours were duplicative. 534 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008). In Moreno, the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court s reduction to an attorney-fee request filed by a prevailing plaintiff in a civil-rights action. After personally excluding about 9 percent of the total hours spent on the case, counsel requested an attorney-fee award of $704, The district court further reduced the hours, concluding that 50 percent of the time spent on investigation and interviews was unnecessary and about 30 percent of the time spent on research, appeal, and trial preparation was duplicative. After a reduction to counsel s hourly rate, the district court awarded attorney s fees totaling $428,053. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit analyzed separately the district court s reductions for duplicative work, unnecessary work, and unreasonable hourly rates. While recognizing that a district court may award a reduced number of hours because of duplicative work or unnecessary work, the Ninth Circuit determined the district court failed to adequately explain how it came up with the amount, noting [t]he explanation need not be elaborate, but it must be comprehensible. Id. at 1111 (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437). In regard to the issue of duplicative hours, the Ninth Circuit commented: The district court has a greater familiarity with the case than we do, but even the district court cannot tell by a cursory examination which hours are unnecessarily 4 P a g e

6 Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fees duplicative. Nevertheless, the district court can impose a small reduction, no greater than 10 percent a haircut based on its exercise of discretion and without a more specific explanation. Id. at 1122 (emphasis added). No case was cited to support authorization to the district court to make an unexplained 10-percent haircut for duplicative hours. 2 One is left to wonder whether a 10-percent cut to the requested hours explained simply by duplication and nothing more satisfies Hensley s clear but concise requirement. Moreno requires a district court to consider counsel s own 9 percent reduction as part of the haircut: Findings of duplicative work should not become a shortcut for reducing an award without identifying just why the requested fee was excessive and by how much. As the reduction passes well beyond the safety zone of a haircut, which plaintiff's counsel seems to have given herself already, the district court's justification for the cuts must be weightier and more specific. 534 F.3d at 1113 (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit s haircut analysis was solely within the confines of its duplicative-hours analysis. Therefore, Moreno could be read as permitting a 10-percent haircut (excluding the percentage already reduced by counsel) only of duplicative hours not all claimed hours. Yet, the Ninth Circuit commented at the end of the Moreno opinion: If opposing counsel cannot come up with specific reasons for reducing the fee request that the district court finds persuasive, it should normally grant the award in full, or with no more than a haircut. Id. at This haircut discussion at the end of the Moreno opinion blurs whether a 10- percent trim applies only to duplicative hours or to all requested hours, which would necessarily result in a 10-percent trim to the lodestar. 3 2 In comparison, an unpublished 1994 Ninth Circuit opinion remanded an attorney-fee award to require the district court to provide clear and concise... reasons for reducing the lodestar calculation by ten percent. Chavez v. City of Lynwood, 42 F.3d 1398, *4 (9th Cir. Nov. 22, 1994) (unpublished opinion). 3 Due to the associative property of multiplication, it makes no difference in terms of the final amount to be awarded whether the district court applies the percentage cut to the number of hours claimed, or to the lodestar figure : (A x B) x C = A x (B x C). Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1203 n.2 (9th Cir. 2013). 5 P a g e

7 Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fees Because Moreno does not provide a source for its 10-percent trim, it is difficult to ascertain how and when the 10-percent trim may be applied by the district court. Earlier in the Moreno opinion, a First Circuit decision, Bogan v. City of Boston, was cited: Where the difference between the lawyer's request and the court's award is relatively small, a somewhat cursory explanation will suffice. But where the disparity is larger, a more specific articulation of the court's reasoning is expected. Moreno, 534 F.3d at 1111 (citing Bogan, 489 F.3d 417, 430 (1st Cir. 2007)). Possibly the First Circuit s permitted cursory explanation by a district court when awarding a fee that is relatively small[er] than the lawyer s request is the source for the 10-percent haircut. Yet when one combs through Bogan, no reference to a 10-percent trim explained simply by duplicative hours is found. In Bogan, the First Circuit affirmed the magistrate judge s 50- percent reduction of the lodestar, even after specific reductions had been made to the requested hourly rate and hours. The magistrate reduced the lodestar by 50 percent because the trial focused on claims that the Bogans were unsuccessful on and the ultimate damage award was modest. The First Circuit affirmed this substantial reduction, over the Bogans argument that it was excessive and involved impermissible double counting, because the magistrate judge provided a detailed explanation for its reductions: Especially where, as here, a fee award is substantially reduced, the trial court is expected to provide a detailed explanation for its action. Id. at 429. Also, the First Circuit noted, The Supreme Court has held that a reduction of a fee award beyond the lodestar may be appropriate where the plaintiff is unsuccessful on interrelated claims and ultimately obtains only limited success. Id. at 430 (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436). Accordingly, Bogan, which is consistent with Ferland s allowance for explained percentage reductions, cannot serve as the root for an unexplained 10-percent trim. A month following Moreno, the Ninth Circuit analyzed a district court s attorney-fee award without mentioning the 10-percent haircut. Instead, the Ninth Circuit emphasized the district court s duty to clearly explain the basis for any reduction to an attorney-fee request in Mendez v. County of San Bernardino. In Mendez, the Ninth Circuit recognized, consistent with Moreno, that the district court should consider whether the requesting party voluntarily reduced its hours: Nonetheless, Mendez's perhaps clumsy effort to account for inappropriate costs or inefficient hours suggests she was trying to act in good faith. 540 F.3d 1109, 1129, n.3 (9th Cir. 2008). Further, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that when calculating the lodestar the court may make adjustments [to the requested hours and hourly rate] it finds are warranted based on the record before it, and [t]he court may also reduce an award for attorney s fees for unnecessarily duplicative work, if the court provides a clear explanation that we can review as to why these hours were truly unnecessary. Id. at (quoting Moreno, 540 F.3d at ). 6 P a g e

8 Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fees From a trim to a shearing? No further mention was given to Moreno s 10-percent haircut for duplicative hours in a published Ninth Circuit civil opinion until 2013 when the 10-percent trim was expressly expanded to the lodestar. 4 In Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, the Ninth Circuit stated: [W]hen a district court decides that a percentage cut (to either the lodestar or the number of hours) is warranted, it must set forth a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for choosing a given percentage reduction. We have recognized one exception to this rule: [T]he district court can impose a small reduction, no greater than 10 percent a haircut based on its exercise of discretion and without a more specific explanation. 729 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Gates, 987 F.2d at 1400, and then Moreno, 534 F.3d at 1112) (emphasis added). No justification was offered for expanding Moreno s 10- percent haircut from duplicative hours to the lodestar. 5 Not only is the basis for this expansion unexplained but this expansion is at odds with the Ninth Circuit attorney-fee principles set forth in Gates and Ferland, and the 2010 Supreme Court decision Perdue v. Kenny A. Perdue addressed whether an enhancement to a fee award was permitted. The Supreme Court emphasized that a judge must explain all aspects of a fee award in order to permit appellate review, ensure consistent attorney-fee awards, and to prevent a judge s mood from impacting the court s decision: It is essential that the judge provide a reasonably specific explanation for all aspects of a fee determination, including any award of an enhancement. Unless such an explanation is given, adequate appellate review is not feasible, and 4 The 10-percent haircut was mentioned in a Criminal Justice Act fee opinion, In re Matter of Gerald Smith, 586 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2009), and a social security opinion, Neil v. Comm r of Soc. Sec., 495 Fed. App. 845 (9th Cir. Nov. 6, 2012) (unpublished opinion). 5 A separate concern regarding Gonzalez is its failure to recognize that one of the factors set forth in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, (9th Cir. 1975) whether a fee is contingent or flat may not be used by the district court to consider a fee s reasonableness. See City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, (1992) (determining a fee s contingency should not be considered when determining whether an enhancement to the lodestar is appropriate under fee-shifting statutes); Davis v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536 (9th Cir. 1992), vacated in part on other grounds, 984 F.2d 345 (9th Cir. 1993) (recognizing that whether the fee was a contingent fee is not a factor in either the lodestar calculation or the ultimate reasonableness assessment). In addition, whether a lawsuit s desirability is relevant to the fee calculation is questionable. Id. at (citing Dague, 505 U.S. at ). 7 P a g e

9 Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fees without such review, widely disparate awards may be made, and awards may be influenced (or at least, may appear to be influenced) by a judge's subjective opinion regarding particular attorneys or the importance of the case. 559 U.S. 542, 558 (2010). Although Perdue analyzed an enhancement, not a reduction, to the lodestar, the purpose of requiring the district court to provide a reasonably specific determination for all aspects of a fee determination applies equally to a reduction, even a 10- percent reduction. And Perdue recognizes this: Why, for example, did the court grant a 75% enhancement instead of the 100% increase that respondents sought? And why 75% rather than 50% or 25% or 10%? Id. at 557. Ferland, Gates, and Perdue make the expansion of Moreno s 10-percent duplication haircut to the lodestar in Gonzalez confounding. And the unexplained 10-percent haircut continues to be recognized. 6 Last year in Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court s attorney-fee award, which reduced the requested hours (already reduced by counsel by 10 percent) by 88 percent because of multiple duplicative efforts, excessive overstaffing, and unnecessary hours and then reduced the lodestar by another 25 percent because the plaintiffs experienced limited success on their claims. 751 F.3d 1096, (9th Cir. 2014). When reviewing the district court s assessment of the reasonableness of the requested hours, Chaudhry states, a district court can reduce a lawyer s request for duplicative or unnecessary work, and it can impose up to a 10 percent reduction without explanation.... However, where the disparity is larger, a more specific articulation of the court's reasoning is expected. Id. at *12 (quoting Moreno, 534 F.3d at ) (emphasis added). What attorney-fee findings must a district court make? Following Chaudhry, a number of questions remain. First, because Chaudhry discusses the 10- percent haircut in the confines of duplicative and unnecessary work, is the Ninth Circuit shifting back to permitting unexplained 10-percent trims solely to reduce duplicative or unnecessary hours, rather than to reduce the lodestar? Second, must the 10-percent trim take into account any reduction in hours already done by counsel? In Chaudhry, the Ninth Circuit noted that the requesting party reduced the hours it spent on the case by 10 percent, but later in the opinion when setting forth the 10-percent haircut rule, the Ninth Circuit did not state that a 10-percent haircut by the district court would be inappropriate in light of the voluntary 10-percent reduction already taken by counsel. 6 See also Marquez v. Harper Sch. Dist. No. 66, 546 Fed. Appx. 659 (9th Cir. Nov. 25, 2013) (unpublished opinion) (citing to Moreno and reversing the district court s 50-percent reduction in claimed hours because it surpassed the 10-percent haircut and was not supported with a specific explanation). 8 P a g e

10 Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fees Therefore, does Chaudhry expand Moreno s haircut to 20 percent: 10 percent by requesting counsel and an additional 10 percent by the district court? Such an expansion is at odds even with Moreno. A further question is posed by an unpublished Ninth Circuit decision that followed Chaudhry: Terry v. City of San Diego, 583 Fed. App x 786 (9th Cir. 2014) (unpublished opinion). Terry ruled that absent a massive fee application, the district court must conduct an hour-by-hour analysis of the fee request and exclude only unreasonable hours thereby limiting across-theboard percentage cuts to massive fee applications. Id. at 789. Should a distinction be made between massive fee requests and simpler fee requests, and what constitutes a massive fee request? Permitting 10-percent haircuts to massive fee requests, as compared to simpler fee requests, will result in a greater disparity between the requested award and the ultimate award, i.e., 90 percent of $500,000 is $450,000 (a difference of $50,000), whereas 90 percent of $100,000 is $90,000 (a difference of $10,000). Therefore a judge s mood when reviewing a massive attorney-fee request could result in a significant reduction to that request a concern that established the heightened scrutiny for percentage cuts involving large fee requests in Gates. The last fundamental question is whether Moreno s unexplained 10-percent trim remains good law? Any unexplained trim appears at odds with Hensley, Ferland, Gates, and Perdue, which require at a minimum, a concise but clear explanation for a district court s attorney-fee findings. An unexplained cut is also at odds with the Supreme Court s Delaware Valley Citizens Council for Clean Air decision, in which the Supreme Court emphasized that the lodestar is presumed to be reasonable and the district court must make detailed findings as to why the lodestar amount was unreasonable. 478 U.S. at 568. Accordingly, a district court s haircut to the lodestar for no specified reason, especially if requesting counsel already reduced their hours or hourly rate, does not comply with Supreme Court attorney-fee principles, although it is permitted under the Ninth Circuit s Moreno, Gonzalez, and Chaudhry decisions. This poses quite the conundrum for district courts and counsel in the Ninth Circuit. Practice Pointers What is the take away for a party seeking to recover attorney s fees and to avoid an undesired haircut to the requested amount? Counsel is encouraged to do the following: provide the district court with sufficiently detailed hourly records so that the court has documentation to conduct an hour-by-hour analysis; if there are time entries that appear duplicative or unnecessary, counsel should explain why such hours were reasonably incurred or voluntarily reduce those hours; 9 P a g e

11 Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fees if counsel has voluntarily reduced the hours or the lodestar, identify those reductions and cite to Moreno as requiring the district court is to consider those reductions when calculating a reasonable lodestar and attorney-fee award; (attempt to) explain that it is not a massive fee application, notwithstanding the provided hourly records if it is massive, provide the hourly records in a format that makes the court s review as easy as possible by identifying the date, hours, and attorney whom performed the work, and providing enough detail to permit the court to differentiate between tasks; file a personal declaration identifying your legal experience and skills in support of the requested hourly rate; provide declarations from other counsel supporting the reasonableness of the requested hourly rate in the local community by an attorney of similar skill; explain why the presumed-reasonable lodestar (or enhanced lodestar) achieves a reasonable attorney-fee award; cite Hensley s requirement that a district court provide a clear but concise explanation for all attorney-fee findings; and also cite Perdue, Delaware Valley, Gates, and Ferland for the proposition that any reduction to hours, hourly rate, or the lodestar are to be clearly explained and therefore any doubts as to the application of Moreno, Gonzalez, and Chaudhry are to be interpreted as requiring the court to explain its attorney-fee award no more unexplained bad haircuts to attorney-fee requests. 10 P a g e

12 E.D. Wash. ATTORNEY FEE AWARDS 1 By Erika Hartliep, Staff Attorney to U.S. District Court Senior Judge Edward F. Shea Year Awarded Attorney Case Location Type of Claim & Case Information Years of Practice Skills/Awards 2 Awarded Hourly Rate 2015 Robert Dunn Spokane Disability discrimination Carlson v. City of Spokane, CV TOR 2014 John John Spokane Breach of commercial lease 2014 John Jamnback Spokane (Seattle BKWSpokane, LLC v. FDIC, CV TOR Breach of commercial lease BKWSpokane, LLC v. FDIC, CV TOR 2015 John Lynch Spokane Copyright infringement Elf-Man, LLC v. Lamberson, CV TOR 2014 Steven Miller Spokane Breach of commercial lease BKWSpokane, LLC v. FDIC, CV TOR 2014 David Lowe Spokane Copyright infringement Elf-Man, LLC v. C.G. Chinque Albright, CV TOR The Thompsons Film, LLC v. Athias, CV TOR 34 -experienced federal and state trial lawyer -prepares materials and lectures for CLE programs on employment-related matters 44 -financial services litigation -law review 26 -litigator -30 state and federal court jury trials -argued appeals -presented over 25 cases to arbitration panels 25 -intellectual property practice -counsel of record in numerous trademark, patent, and copyright matters 13 -financial services litigator -bankruptcy experience 20 -federal and state court litigation experience -intellectual property $450 (2013) $400 (2012) $445 $405 $400 $385 $ Maureen VanderMay Spokane Copyright infringement Elf-Man, LLC v. C.G. Chinque Albright, CV TOR -30 years of legal experience as both law professor and practicing attorney $350 1 This chart was last updated April 10, 2015, and is based on attorney-fee awards in the Eastern District of Washington since This chart does not purport to be a full and accurate record of attorney-fee awards issued by Eastern District of Washington judges but rather serves only as a sampling of such awards. See Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1115 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussing concern of adopting an informal court-wide policy regarding the reasonableness of charged hourly rates). 2 Information was obtained from the documents filed in support of the attorney-fee motion, the pertinent Order, or the law firm website.

13 2014 Michael Daudt Spokane (Seattle The Thompsons Film, LLC v. Athias, CV TOR Improper removal from Chelan County Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, CV TOR 22 -partner $ Michael Delay Spokane WLAD retaliation Hotchkiss v. CSK Auto, Inc., CV TOR 24 -civil litigation: represents insureds and personal injury claimants in disputes with insurers, along with real estate and probate -law firm owner $ Patrick Kirby Spokane WLAD retaliation 2014 Lyle Tenpenny Spokane (Seattle 2014 Jeremy Roller Spokane (Seattle 2013 Brendan Monaghan Yakima Hotchkiss v. CSK Auto, Inc., CV TOR Breach of commercial lease BKWSpokane, LLC v. FDIC, CV TOR Breach of commercial lease BKWSpokane, LLC v. FDIC, CV TOR Hostile work environment/constructive discharge EEOC v. Global, CV EFS 2012 Keller Allen Spokane Wrongful employment termination EEOC v. Cottonwood Financial, CV EFS 19 -employment and commercial litigation -law firm owner 13 -partner -speaker on labor and employment issues -Law Review 13 -partner -served as law clerk to U.S. District Court judge -commercial litigation matters -clerked for U.S. District Court judge -complex civil litigation matters 21 -shareholder -litigation and trial practice focusing on complex commercial matters -serves as arbitrator and mediator 23 -Fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers -published author and lecturer in employment law $350 $340 $340 $315 $ Matthew Anderson Spokane Business/construction contract Riverstone Center West, LLC v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, CV EFS 34 -focuses on commercial and business-related litigation -state and federal cases -American College of Trial Lawyer Fellow $ Julie Woog Spokane (Seattle Breach of commercial lease BKWSpokane, LLC v. FDIC, CV TOR 10 -civil litigation practice $315

14 2013 Bryan Cross Richland (Denver Subrogation action for vehicular accident injuries Lamberson v. Garfias, CV RMP 19 -partner -trial attorney -National Trial Counsel for Ford Motor Co. and other Fortune 500 companies $300 -Martindale-Hubbell AV peer review rating 2010 Richard Kuhling Yakima (Spokane Agricultural Worker Protection Act Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., CV EFS 33 -experienced trial lawyer -commercial and personal injury litigation $ Beverly Anderson Spokane Business/construction contract Riverstone Center West, LLC v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., EDWA No. CV EFS, ECF No research and brief writing for state and federal trial and appellate matters -Gonzaga adjunct writing professor $ Lynden Rasmussen Spokane Business/construction contract Riverstone Center West, LLC v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., EDWA No. CV EFS, ECF No focuses on construction law -taught construction law at Gonzaga $ Gary Smith Yakima Fair Labor Standards Act Rana v. Bains Invests. Inc., CV JPH 33 -senior attorney of NW Justice Project $ Mike Kelly Richland (Des Moines 42 U.S.C Corter v. Groseclose CV EFS 13 -criminal defense, employment law, civil rights, and personal injury -trial counsel $ Beth Joffe Yakima (Seattle Hostile work environment/constructive discharge EEOC v. Global, CV EFS 19 -employment litigation -co-author Bloomberg BNA Corporate Practice Employment Discrimination Law series $ Elizabeth Weinsten Spokane (Seattle Breach of commercial lease BKWSpokane, LLC v. FDIC, CV TOR 9 -commercial litigation matters $ Steven Lacy Spokane (Wenatche e Family Medical Leave Act Lane v. Grant County, CV RCW 33 -civil rights litigation -partner $ Kirk Miller Spokane Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 7 -litigation experience $285

15 2014 Clay Gatens Spokane (Wenatche e Sleeper v. Rent Recover, LLC, CV-14-5-TOR Improper removal from Chelan County Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, CV TOR -represents low-income clients in consumer rights cases 11 -partner $ Michael Arch Wenatchee Dispute concerning settlement agreement concerning Native American s estate distribution Wapato v. Evans, CV EFS, ECF No Diane Meyers Spokane Breach of commercial lease 2013 Lori Isley Yakima Farmworker rights BKWSpokane, LLC v. FDIC, CV TOR Saucedo v. NW Mgmt. & Realty Servs., CV TOR 32 -state and federal practice -BV rating -client s contract rate: $ senior associate -complex litigation matters and trial experience -Law Review editor -clerked for a U.S. Court of Appeals judge 21 -Columbia Legal Services -represents low-income people, including farm workers in complex civil litigation $275 $275 $ Joe Morrison Wenatchee Farmworker rights Saucedo v. NW Mgmt. & Realty Servs., CV TOR 20 -Columbia Legal Services -represents low-income people, including farm workers in complex civil litigation $ Jeffrey Smith Spokane Copyright infringement Elf-Man, LLC v. Lamberson, CV TOR 8 -corporate, litigation, and life-sciences groups $ Ryan Yahne Spokane Business/construction contract Riverstone Center West, LLC v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., EDWA No. CV EFS, ECF No focuses on construction law in state and federal court -WYLD past president $ Rhett Barney Spokane Copyright infringement Elf-Man, LLC v. Lamberson, CV TOR 1 -trademark, copyright, and litigation practice groups $ Robert Mitchell Yakima (Spokane Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 7 -lead counsel $250

16 Chase v. Delta Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., CV LRS -specializes in debt collection litigation 2014 Joseph Baker Jeffrey Caffee Neal Kinglsey Richland (Des Moines attorneys) 42 U.S.C Corter v. Groseclose CV EFS ECF No. 91 ECF No. 91 $ Bruce Johnston Wenatchee (Bainbridge Island Indian law will dispute Wapato v. Evans, CV EFS, ECF No state and federal practice -AV rating -law school adjunct faculty member $ Mary Palmer Spokane Employment discrimination EEOC v. Cottonwood Financial, CV EFS 29 -associate $ Brian Ihler Kennewick 1983 unlawful search and seizure Rogers v. City of Kennewick, CV EFS 24 -partner -civil practice $ Beau Haynes Spokane (Seattle Improper removal from Chelan County Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, CV TOR 3 -associate $ Rick Wetmore Spokane Disability discrimination Carlson v. City of Spokane, CV TOR 2015 Scott Kinkley Spokane Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Sleeper v. Rent Recover, LLC, CV-14-5-TOR 2015 Susan Nelson Spokane Disability discrimination Carlson v. City of Spokane, CV TOR 10 -associate $ litigation experience -represents low-income clients with a variety of consumer and housing issues $ associate $ Patrick Pleas Yakima Fair Labor Standards Act Rana v. Bains Invests. Inc., CV JPH 16 -NW Justice Project staff attorney -represent eligible low income people $ Elizabeth Tellessen Spokane Business/construction contract Riverstone Center West, LLC v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., EDWA No. CV focuses on private and public land use & real estate transactions -WYLD president elect & trustee $200

17 395-EFS, ECF No Christine Lyman Richland (Denver Subrogation action for vehicular accident injuries Lamberson v. Garfias, CV RMP 4 -associate -clerked for Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal judge -graduated Order of the Coif $ Sara Hutchinson Yakima (Seattle Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Chase v. Delta Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., CV LRS 8 -non-lead counsel -specializes in debt collection litigation $ Gregory Johnson Amy Crewdson Yakima Agricultural Worker Protection Act Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., CV EFS See ECF No See ECF No $200 for each of these attorneys Daniel Ford Lori Isley Joachim Morrison Laura Contreras 2013 Olivia Gonzalez Yakima Hostile work environment/constructive discharge EEOC v. Global, CV EFS 4 -associate $ Kellen Hade Spokane Breach of commercial lease BKWSpokane, LLC v. FDIC, CV TOR 3 -law review -clerked for U.S. District Ct. judge $ Stewart Smith Spokane (Wenatche e Family Medical Leave Act Lane v. Grant County, CV RCW 17 -associate -employment law, civil rights, and personal injury $ Andrea Schmitt Yakima Farmworker rights Saucedo v. NW Mgmt. & Realty Servs., CV TOR 6 -staff attorney for Columbia Legal Services -clerked for Washington Supreme Court justice $ Christopher Crago Spokane Business/construction contract Riverstone Center West, LLC v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., EDWA No. CV EFS, ECF No tax and transactional services for businesses and estates $ Collette Leland Spokane Business/construction contract 2 -commercial litigation & criminal defense -law clerk to Washington Supreme Court justice $170

18 Riverstone Center West, LLC v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., EDWA No. CV EFS, ECF No Alexandria John Spokane Disability discrimination Carlson v. City of Spokane, CV TOR -deputy prosecuting attorney for Spokane County 3 -associate $140 Paralegal Rates: Sleeper (2014) Judge Rice: $75/hour (noted that no evidence was submitted to support requested rate of $125/hour) Rogers (2010) Judge Shea: $90/hour Corter (2014) Judge Shea: $90/hour Lane (2013) Judge Pederson: $90/hour Carlson (2015) Judge Rice: $95/hour Elf-Man (2014) Judge Rice: $125/hour BKWSpokane LLC (2014) Judge Rice: $165/hour Clerical Rates: Rogers (2010) Judge Shea: $30/hour

Case 5:04-cv-04099-RDR Document 112 Filed 01/03/08 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 5:04-cv-04099-RDR Document 112 Filed 01/03/08 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Case 5:04-cv-04099-RDR Document 112 Filed 01/03/08 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ERIKA MEYER, vs. Plaintiff, Case No. 04-4099-RDR CHRISTOPHER NAVA, et al.,

More information

CASE 0:12-cv-01019-DSD-AJB Document 72 Filed 03/06/14 Page 1 of 7. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil No.

CASE 0:12-cv-01019-DSD-AJB Document 72 Filed 03/06/14 Page 1 of 7. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil No. CASE 0:12-cv-01019-DSD-AJB Document 72 Filed 03/06/14 Page 1 of 7 Jeremy Axel, Matthew Mitchell and Keyon Cooley, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil No. 12-1019(DSD/AJB) Plaintiffs.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case 2:13-cv-00646-ABC-PLA Document 135 Filed 07/30/14 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:2352 Present: The Honorable Audrey B. Collins Angela Bridges Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present

More information

4:12-cv-13965-MAG-MKM Doc # 8 Filed 08/06/13 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 317 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

4:12-cv-13965-MAG-MKM Doc # 8 Filed 08/06/13 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 317 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION 4:12-cv-13965-MAG-MKM Doc # 8 Filed 08/06/13 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 317 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF: RANDALL STEVEN HUDOCK and JOSEPHINE V. HUDOCK,

More information

U.S. Supreme Court City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (1986)

U.S. Supreme Court City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (1986) City of Riverside v. Rivera No. 85-224 Argued March 31, 1986 Decided June 27, 1986 477 U.S. 561 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT

More information

2:03-cv-74279-RHC Doc # 162 Filed 02/20/07 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 8098 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

2:03-cv-74279-RHC Doc # 162 Filed 02/20/07 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 8098 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION 2:03-cv-74279-RHC Doc # 162 Filed 02/20/07 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 8098 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CITY OF DETROIT, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 03-CV-74279-DT

More information

Case 2:11-cv-08607-R -DTB Document 13 Filed 11/18/11 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:355 EXHIBIT A

Case 2:11-cv-08607-R -DTB Document 13 Filed 11/18/11 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:355 EXHIBIT A Case 2:11-cv-08607-R -DTB Document 13 Filed 11/18/11 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:355 EXHIBIT A Case 2:11-cv-08607-R -DTB Document 13 Filed 11/18/11 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:356 David Zaro Partner Los Angeles Office

More information

Case 2:10-cv-05383-TON Document 24 Filed 05/13/11 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:10-cv-05383-TON Document 24 Filed 05/13/11 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:10-cv-05383-TON Document 24 Filed 05/13/11 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KEVIN HAYWARD, et al. : CIVIL ACTION : NO. 10-5383 v. : : DELAWARE

More information

Challenging EEOC Conciliation Charges

Challenging EEOC Conciliation Charges Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Challenging EEOC Conciliation Charges Law360, New

More information

Case 2:08-cv-00611-JES-SPC Document 29 Filed 03/19/09 Page 1 of 6 PageID 224

Case 2:08-cv-00611-JES-SPC Document 29 Filed 03/19/09 Page 1 of 6 PageID 224 Case 2:08-cv-00611-JES-SPC Document 29 Filed 03/19/09 Page 1 of 6 PageID 224 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION JOSE MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2:08-cv-611-FtM-29SPC

More information

Case 1:12-cv-01862-LJO-JLT Document 19 Filed 03/04/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:12-cv-01862-LJO-JLT Document 19 Filed 03/04/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0-ljo-jlt Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 KEVIN MOREAU, v. Plaintiff, :-CV-0-LJO-JLT ORDER ON MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES

More information

Case 2:11-cv-03045-EFS Document 666 Filed 09/24/15

Case 2:11-cv-03045-EFS Document 666 Filed 09/24/15 Case :-cv-00-efs Document Filed 0// UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 0 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. Plaintiff, GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., d/b/a Global Horizons Manpower,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar. Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar. Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD. Case: 14-11987 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD PIEDMONT OFFICE

More information

Case: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #:

Case: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageid> Case: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ALVIN E. WISEMAN, Plaintiff,

More information

Case 5:10-cv-00206-MTT Document 18 Filed 02/10/11 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

Case 5:10-cv-00206-MTT Document 18 Filed 02/10/11 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION Case 5:10-cv-00206-MTT Document 18 Filed 02/10/11 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION SARAH M. STALVEY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-CV-206

More information

S. JEFFREY MINKER, P.C.

S. JEFFREY MINKER, P.C. S. JEFFREY MINKER, P.C. ATTORNEY/MEDIATOR/ARBITRATOR 860 West Ina Road Tucson, Arizona 85704-4405 (520) 797-7800 NAME: OFFICE ADDRESS: Jeffrey Minker Jeffrey Minker, LLC 860 West Ina Road Tucson, Arizona

More information

BRB No. 13-0356 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

BRB No. 13-0356 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) BRB No. 13-0356 SAM CASTILLO v. Claimant-Petitioner SUNDIAL MARINE TUG AND BARGE WORKS, INCORPORATED and SAIF CORPORATION Employer/Carrier- Respondents DATE ISSUED: Apr. 24, 2014 DECISION and ORDER Appeal

More information

RESUMÉ BOYD S. LEMON. Nature of Practice

RESUMÉ BOYD S. LEMON. Nature of Practice RESUMÉ BOYD S. LEMON Attorney and member of the California Bar since 1966; member, Bar of the United States Supreme Court, various United States Courts of Appeals, United States District Courts and United

More information

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT BAP Appeal No. 05-36 Docket No. 29 Filed: 01/20/2006 Page: 1 of 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT IN RE RICHARD A. FORD and TONDA L. FORD, also known as Tonda Yung, Debtors.

More information

Participation on University of California Employment Practices Liability Program Defense Panel for UC Davis and UC Davis Health Systems Application

Participation on University of California Employment Practices Liability Program Defense Panel for UC Davis and UC Davis Health Systems Application THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL BERKELEY * DAVIS * IRVINE * LOS ANGELES * MERCED * RIVERSIDE * SAN DIEGO * SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA * SANTA CRUZ 1111 Franklin

More information

Kenneth B. Walton Partner, Chair, Employment Practices Group Member, Executive Committee kwalton@donovanhatem.com 617-406-4524 direct 617-406-4501 fax

Kenneth B. Walton Partner, Chair, Employment Practices Group Member, Executive Committee kwalton@donovanhatem.com 617-406-4524 direct 617-406-4501 fax Kenneth B. Walton Partner, Chair, Employment Practices Group Member, Executive Committee kwalton@donovanhatem.com 617-406-4524 direct 617-406-4501 fax Experience Kenneth B. Walton is a Founding Partner

More information

Kenneth B. Walton Senior Partner, Chair, Employment Practices Group kwalton@donovanhatem.com 617-406-4524 direct 617-406-4501 fax

Kenneth B. Walton Senior Partner, Chair, Employment Practices Group kwalton@donovanhatem.com 617-406-4524 direct 617-406-4501 fax Kenneth B. Walton Senior Partner, Chair, Employment Practices Group kwalton@donovanhatem.com 617-406-4524 direct 617-406-4501 fax Experience Kenneth B. Walton is a Founding Partner of the Boston-based

More information

Case 3:14-mc-00009-B Document 9 Filed 06/09/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID 332 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Case 3:14-mc-00009-B Document 9 Filed 06/09/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID 332 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION Case 3:14-mc-00009-B Document 9 Filed 06/09/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID 332 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION BERKLEY REGIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, V. No.

More information

Case 13-09004-CL7 Filed 11/06/13 Entered 11/06/13 16:38:19 Doc 66 Pg. 1 of 6

Case 13-09004-CL7 Filed 11/06/13 Entered 11/06/13 16:38:19 Doc 66 Pg. 1 of 6 Case 13-09004-CL7 Filed 11/06/13 Entered 11/06/13 16:38:19 Doc 66 Pg. 1 of 6 November 6, 2013 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 325 West "F" Street, San Diego, California 92101-6991

More information

Case 11-13028 Doc 701 Filed 01/26/15 Entered 01/26/15 15:43:47 Main Document Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 11-13028 Doc 701 Filed 01/26/15 Entered 01/26/15 15:43:47 Main Document Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN RE: CASE NO. VIRGIN OFFSHORE U.S.A., INC 11-13028 SECTION A DEBTORS CHAPTER 11 OPINION The hearing on the Third and Final Application

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT Filed 10/11/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT ED AGUILAR, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B238853 (Los Angeles County

More information

CASE 0:11-cv-00412-MJD-FLN Document 96 Filed 07/11/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

CASE 0:11-cv-00412-MJD-FLN Document 96 Filed 07/11/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA CASE 0:11-cv-00412-MJD-FLN Document 96 Filed 07/11/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re Mirapex Products Liability Litigation Case No. 07-MD-1836 (MJD/FLN) This document

More information

Case 4:12-cv-00442 Document 49 Filed in TXSD on 02/07/14 Page 1 of 10

Case 4:12-cv-00442 Document 49 Filed in TXSD on 02/07/14 Page 1 of 10 Case 4:12-cv-00442 Document 49 Filed in TXSD on 02/07/14 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Petitioners,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION 2:10-cv-13852-PJD-MKM Doc # 13 Filed 03/23/11 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 60 In re CRAIG WILLIAM REUBER and DANIELLE LESA REUBER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Debtors.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION ORDER Case 4:02-cv-00066-HL Document 136 Filed 02/10/09 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : ex rel. GLENN F. NICHOLS

More information

ARBITRATION ADVISORY 1997-03 FEE ARBITRATION ISSUES INVOLVING CONTINGENCY FEES. August 22, 1997

ARBITRATION ADVISORY 1997-03 FEE ARBITRATION ISSUES INVOLVING CONTINGENCY FEES. August 22, 1997 ARBITRATION ADVISORY 1997-03 FEE ARBITRATION ISSUES INVOLVING CONTINGENCY FEES August 22, 1997 Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the Committee on Mandatory Fee Arbitration.

More information

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Settlement Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Settlement Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J. CAMPION, APC Douglas J. Campion, Esq. (75381) doug@djcampion.com 17150 Via Del Campo, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (619) 299-2001 Facsimile: (619) 858-0034 James O.

More information

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as TCF Natl. Bank v. Santora, 2010-Ohio-1308.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TCF NATIONAL BANK FBO AEON FINANCIAL, LLC -vs- DAVID C. SANTORA, et al., Plaintiff-Appellant

More information

2:04-cv-72741-DPH-RSW Doc # 17 Filed 08/31/05 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 160 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

2:04-cv-72741-DPH-RSW Doc # 17 Filed 08/31/05 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 160 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION 2:04-cv-72741-DPH-RSW Doc # 17 Filed 08/31/05 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 160 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff,

More information

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-1944

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-1944 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1944 THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff Appellant, PORTAL HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., Defendant Appellee.

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Lorrie Logsdon sued her employer, Turbines, Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Lorrie Logsdon sued her employer, Turbines, Inc. 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,

More information

8:08-cv-03638-HMH Date Filed 12/01/14 Entry Number 108 Page 1 of 15

8:08-cv-03638-HMH Date Filed 12/01/14 Entry Number 108 Page 1 of 15 8:08-cv-03638-HMH Date Filed 12/01/14 Entry Number 108 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION Steven C. Lefemine, ) d/b/a Columbia

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE; ET AL., Plaintiffs, Civil No. 03-1348-JO v. O R D E R SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, being sued

More information

2013 IL App (1st) 120898-U. No. 1-12-0898

2013 IL App (1st) 120898-U. No. 1-12-0898 2013 IL App (1st) 120898-U FOURTH DIVISION March 28, 2013 No. 1-12-0898 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

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MATTHEW PRICHARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; IBM LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN, Defendants-Appellees.

More information

[Additional Counsel Appear on Signature Page] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

[Additional Counsel Appear on Signature Page] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Case :0-cv-00-LRS Document - Filed // 0 Toby J. Marshall, WSBA # Erika L. Nusser, WSBA #0 Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Telephone: () -0 Facsimile: () 0- Email: tmarshall@tmdwlaw.com Email: enusser@tmdwlaw.com

More information

DUPREE v AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE CO

DUPREE v AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE CO Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Syllabus This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Chief

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 07-3834 JEFFBOAT, LLC and SIGNAL MUTUAL INDEMNITY ASSOCIATION, LTD., v. Petitioners, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS

More information

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. EDGE FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC, P.A. a/a/o SHIRLEY C. WISE, FRANC...

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. EDGE FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC, P.A. a/a/o SHIRLEY C. WISE, FRANC... Reprinted with permission from the Florida Law Weekly: [ 35 Fla. L. Weekly D1438a Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Attorney's fees -- Paralegal fees -- Multiplier -- Circuit court did not depart

More information

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD. GARNETT F. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Agency.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD. GARNETT F. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Agency. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 69 M.S.P.R. 299 Docket Number DC-0752-92-0316-A-1 GARNETT F. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Agency. Date: January 22,1996 Peter B.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 13-1006 IN RE ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PER CURIAM Rafael Zuniga sued San Diego Tortilla (SDT) for personal injuries and then added

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION. Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:10cv378/MCR/CJK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION. Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:10cv378/MCR/CJK Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. WEST CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, Defendant. / O R D E

More information

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas Opinion issued June 11, 2013. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-12-00636-CV SINHUE TEMPLOS, Appellant V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. FRANK DONALD WILLIAMS; DANIEL LARRY; DANIEL LABATO; JOSEPH STONE; STEPHANIE SLATER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. The memorandum disposition filed on May 19, 2016, is hereby amended.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. The memorandum disposition filed on May 19, 2016, is hereby amended. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED JUN 30 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation, v. Plaintiff - Appellant,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2010 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2010 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2010 Session STEPHANIE JONES and HOWARD JONES v. RENGA I. VASU, M.D., THE NEUROLOGY CLINIC, and METHODIST LEBONHEUR HOSPITAL Appeal from the

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 10/7/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE LARS ROULAND et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. PACIFIC SPECIALTY

More information

ATTORNEY S FEES IN PROBATE MATTERS. Colorado Bar Association Elder Law Committee October 20, 2005

ATTORNEY S FEES IN PROBATE MATTERS. Colorado Bar Association Elder Law Committee October 20, 2005 ATTORNEY S FEES IN PROBATE MATTERS Colorado Bar Association Elder Law Committee October 20, 2005 Martha L. Ridgway, Esq. and Thomas A. Rodriguez, Esq. Ridgway, Romeo & Vincent, LLC 1070 Century Drive,

More information

Case 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Case 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SANDRA H. DEYA and EDWIN DEYA, individually and as next friends and natural

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT Filed 2/11/15 Estate of Thomson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 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

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: DAVID L. TAYLOR THOMAS R. HALEY III Jennings Taylor Wheeler & Haley P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: DOUGLAS D. SMALL Foley & Small South Bend, Indiana

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND at GREENBELT. In Re: Debtor Chapter 7. vs. Adversary No.

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND at GREENBELT. In Re: Debtor Chapter 7. vs. Adversary No. Entered: July 31, 2013 Case 13-00202 Doc 20 Filed 07/31/13 Page 1 of 10 Date signed July 31, 2013 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND at GREENBELT In Re: Fely Sison Tanamor

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 40459-1-II Appellant, UNPUBLISHED OPINION v. LOVERA M. BLACKCROW, Respondent. Armstrong, J. The Clallam County Superior

More information

CARL E. FORSBERG PRACTICE EMPHASIS AND EXPERIENCE EDUCATION BAR / COURT ADMISSIONS HONORS / AWARDS / UNIQUE RECOGNITION.

CARL E. FORSBERG PRACTICE EMPHASIS AND EXPERIENCE EDUCATION BAR / COURT ADMISSIONS HONORS / AWARDS / UNIQUE RECOGNITION. CARL E. FORSBERG Shareholder Main Phone: 206.689.8500 Direct Line: 206.689.8552 Email: cforsberg@forsberg-umlauf.com PRACTICE EMPHASIS AND EXPERIENCE Insurance Coverage and Analysis Environmental Coverage

More information

Case3:12-cv-00559-RS Document103-7 Filed05/15/14 Page1 of 10

Case3:12-cv-00559-RS Document103-7 Filed05/15/14 Page1 of 10 Case3:12-cv-00559-RS Document103-7 Filed05/15/14 Page1 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 Leonard B. Simon (State Bar No. 58310) lens@rgrdlaw.com LAW OFFICES OF LEONARD B. SIMON 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego,

More information

E-FILED. Attorneys for Plaintiff, Peter MacKinnon, Jr. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CASE NO. 111 CV 193767

E-FILED. Attorneys for Plaintiff, Peter MacKinnon, Jr. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CASE NO. 111 CV 193767 ADAM J. GUTRIDE (State Bar No. ) adam@gutridesafier.com SETH A. SAFIER (State Bar No. ) seth@gutridesafier.com TODD KENNEDY (State Bar No. 0) todd@gutridesafier.com GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP Douglass Street San

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA. v. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY et al Doc. 324 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 27 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SSA TERMINALS, LLC and HOMEPORT INSURANCE, v. Petitioners, No. 14-70201

More information

November 21, 2014. New Michigan Supreme Court Decision Concerning Appraisal Awards

November 21, 2014. New Michigan Supreme Court Decision Concerning Appraisal Awards November 21, 2014 New Michigan Supreme Court Decision Concerning Appraisal Awards The Michigan Supreme Court issued a Decision on November 18 th addressing the effect of an appraisal award on an insured

More information

Mary H. Spillane Member. Mary H. Spillane

Mary H. Spillane Member. Mary H. Spillane Mary H. Spillane Two Union Square 601 Union Street, Suite 4100 Seattle, Washington 98101 Office: (206) 628-6656 Fax: (206) 628-6611 Email: mspillane@williamskastner.com Mary Spillane, a member in the Seattle

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) STATE OF IDAHO County of KOOTENAI ss FILED AT O'Clock M CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT Deputy IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI SKY CANYON

More information

CURRICULUM VITAE JOHN M. ALTON

CURRICULUM VITAE JOHN M. ALTON CURRICULUM VITAE JOHN M. ALTON Experience: John M. Alton Co., L.P.A. 88 West Main Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 Owner:March 1, 1998 present Ray & Alton LLP Principal: March 1, 1994 February 28, 1998 Lane,

More information

Case 2:08-cv-01700-NJB-KWR Document 641 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 2:08-cv-01700-NJB-KWR Document 641 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Case 2:08-cv-01700-NJB-KWR Document 641 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ATEL MARITIME INVESTORS, LP, et al. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS CASE NO. 08-1700 SEA

More information

case 1:11-cv-00399-JTM-RBC document 35 filed 11/29/12 page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

case 1:11-cv-00399-JTM-RBC document 35 filed 11/29/12 page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION case 1:11-cv-00399-JTM-RBC document 35 filed 11/29/12 page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION CINDY GOLDEN, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:11 CV 399 STATE FARM MUTUAL

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 14-1414 ALLEN L. FEINGOLD; PHILLIP GODDARD STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 14-1414 ALLEN L. FEINGOLD; PHILLIP GODDARD STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 14-1414 ALLEN L. FEINGOLD; PHILLIP GODDARD v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Phillip Goddard, Appellant On Appeal from the District

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. v. No. 09-CV-956 JEC/DJS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. v. No. 09-CV-956 JEC/DJS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. No. 09-CV-956 JEC/DJS TRICORE REFERENCE LABORATORIES, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 13-20206 Document: 00512651962 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED June 4, 2014 UNITED STATES

More information

Case 2:15-ap-01122-RK Doc 61 Filed 05/09/16 Entered 05/09/16 13:51:33 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Case 2:15-ap-01122-RK Doc 61 Filed 05/09/16 Entered 05/09/16 13:51:33 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION Case :-ap-0-rk Doc Filed 0/0/ Entered 0/0/ :: Desc Main Document Page of 0 In re: L. Scott Apparel, Inc., NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Debtor. Howard

More information

PRACTICE GUIDELINES MEMORANDUM. RE: Sample Bankruptcy Motions and Orders for Personal Injury Practitioners and Trustees

PRACTICE GUIDELINES MEMORANDUM. RE: Sample Bankruptcy Motions and Orders for Personal Injury Practitioners and Trustees PRACTICE GUIDELINES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Attorneys Practicing Before Me And Other Interested Persons C. Timothy Corcoran, III United States Bankruptcy Judge DATE: January 3, 2000 1 RE: Sample Bankruptcy

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as Bank of Am. v. Kuchta, 2012-Ohio-5562.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) BANK OF AMERICA Appellee C.A. No. 12CA0025-M v. GEORGE M. KUCHTA,

More information

MARSHALL G. MINTZ 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-9692 Email: mgmintz@earthlink.

MARSHALL G. MINTZ 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-9692 Email: mgmintz@earthlink. MARSHALL G. MINTZ 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-9692 Email: mgmintz@earthlink.net 2003 - Present 2000-2003 MINTZ & BILLE (formerly known as MINTZ & WERNER) Member of general

More information

Case 4:04-cv-03526 Document 84 Filed in TXSD on 02/02/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Case 4:04-cv-03526 Document 84 Filed in TXSD on 02/02/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION Case 4:04-cv-03526 Document 84 Filed in TXSD on 02/02/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ALEXANDER WARDLAW, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-04-3526

More information

PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS RESPONSE OPPOSING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS RESPONSE OPPOSING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Case 3:08-cv-02117-P Document 57 Filed 02/03/2010 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY, et al. Plaintiffs, vs. DALLAS COUNTY,

More information

Bankruptcy Nuts n Bolts Faculty Biographies

Bankruptcy Nuts n Bolts Faculty Biographies Bankruptcy Nuts n Bolts Faculty Biographies Faculty Biographies Page 1 FACULTY CHAIRS GLORIA Z. NAGLER Nagler Law Group 206.224.3462 Gloria@naglerlaw.com GLORIA Z. NAGLER is the managing shareholder in

More information

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 14-3109 Sprint Communications Company, L.P. lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. 1 Elizabeth S. Jacobs; Geri D. Huser; Nick Wagner, in

More information

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Filed 4/11/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BATTAGLIA ENTERPRISES, INC., D063076 Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,

More information

Determining Jurisdiction for Patent Law Malpractice Cases

Determining Jurisdiction for Patent Law Malpractice Cases 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

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT. IN RE: ALL KELLEY & FERRARO : JOURNAL ENTRY ASBESTOS CASES : : and : : OPINION REVERSED AND REMANDED

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT. IN RE: ALL KELLEY & FERRARO : JOURNAL ENTRY ASBESTOS CASES : : and : : OPINION REVERSED AND REMANDED [Cite as In re all Kelly & Ferraro Asbestos Cases, 2005-Ohio-2608.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 83348 & 83628 IN RE: ALL KELLEY & FERRARO : JOURNAL ENTRY ASBESTOS CASES

More information

Firm Overview. Our clients rely on our aggressive and professional representation in cases that include:

Firm Overview. Our clients rely on our aggressive and professional representation in cases that include: Firm Overview Founded in 1976, Grimm, Vranjes & Greer LLP is an AV rated law firm located in San Diego, California. Since our founding we have built and maintained strong ties throughout Southern California.

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 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-

More information

SUMMARY CURRICULUM VITAE of SHELLEY D. RUSSELL

SUMMARY CURRICULUM VITAE of SHELLEY D. RUSSELL SUMMARY CURRICULUM VITAE of SHELLEY D. RUSSELL LAW FIRM -- SHAREHOLDER CRISPIN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS Crispin Russell PC 1834 S.W. 58 th Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, Oregon 97221-1455 Telephone: 503.293.5767

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION Goodridge v. Hewlett Packard Company Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CHARLES GOODRIDGE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-07-4162 HEWLETT-PACKARD

More information

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 1 United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. Leelawati SANFILIPPO, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. No. 8:04-CV-2079-T-27MSS. May

More information

HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, CRIMINAL JUSTICE CLINIC, Hempstead, N.Y.

HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, CRIMINAL JUSTICE CLINIC, Hempstead, N.Y. TEACHING EXPERIENCE HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, CRIMINAL JUSTICE CLINIC, Hempstead, N.Y. June 2000 through Present Clinical Instructor. Directly supervise law students in all phases of representation

More information

trial court and Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiff's case was barred by the statute of limitations.

trial court and Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiff's case was barred by the statute of limitations. RESULTS Appellate Court upholds decision that malpractice action barred September 2, 2015 The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently upheld a summary judgment obtained by David Overstreet and Mike McCall

More information

ASKING FOR ATTORNEY S FEES IS NOT AS HARD AS YOU THINK Elizabeth A. Leone

ASKING FOR ATTORNEY S FEES IS NOT AS HARD AS YOU THINK Elizabeth A. Leone ASKING FOR ATTORNEY S FEES IS NOT AS HARD AS YOU THINK Elizabeth A. Leone These are trying times. I mean that literally and figuratively. We live in a society where it has become extremely difficult to

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT KNOXVILLE October 25, 2010 Session

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT KNOXVILLE October 25, 2010 Session IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT KNOXVILLE October 25, 2010 Session ANNE MARIE SMITH v. INTEX ENTERPRISES, LLC Appeal from the Circuit Court for Anderson

More information

Kimberlie K. Ryan, Esq. Ryan Law Firm, LLC 283 Columbine St. #157 Denver, CO 80206 (303) 355-0639 kim@ryanfirm.com www.kimberlieryan.

Kimberlie K. Ryan, Esq. Ryan Law Firm, LLC 283 Columbine St. #157 Denver, CO 80206 (303) 355-0639 kim@ryanfirm.com www.kimberlieryan. Kimberlie K. Ryan, Esq. Ryan Law Firm, LLC 283 Columbine St. #157 Denver, CO 80206 (303) 355-0639 kim@ryanfirm.com www.kimberlieryan.com Kimberlie Ryan is in her 18 th year as an attorney and founded the

More information

FILED December 15, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL

FILED December 15, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL 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. 2015 IL App (4th 150225-U NO. 4-15-0225

More information

CASE NO. 1D09-0765. Rhonda B. Boggess of Taylor, Day, Currie, Boyd & Johnson, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D09-0765. Rhonda B. Boggess of Taylor, Day, Currie, Boyd & Johnson, Jacksonville, for Appellant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ATHENA F. GRAINGER, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF SAMUEL GUS FELOS, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION

More information

101 UNBUNDLED LEGAL SERVICES

101 UNBUNDLED LEGAL SERVICES 101 UNBUNDLED LEGAL SERVICES Adopted January 17, 1998. Addendum issued 2006. Introduction and Scope For many years, courts have experienced increasing numbers of pro se litigants. While by definition attorneys

More information

Case 1:11-cv-02137-AWI-SKO Document 136 Filed 12/17/14 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:11-cv-02137-AWI-SKO Document 136 Filed 12/17/14 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0-awi-sko Document Filed // Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JEFF SILVESTER, et al., v. Plaintiffs KAMALA HARRIS, Attorney General of California, and DOES to

More information

BRB No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

BRB No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) U.S. Department of Labor Benefits Review Board P.O. Box 37601 Washington, DC 20013-7601 BRB No. 14-0400 CATHY McDONALD v. Claimant-Petitioner NAVY EXCHANGE SERVICE COMMAND and ABERCROMBIE, SIMMONS & GILLETTE

More information

IN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED February 24, 2015. Appeal No. 2014AP657 DISTRICT I HUPY & ABRAHAM, S.C.,

IN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED February 24, 2015. Appeal No. 2014AP657 DISTRICT I HUPY & ABRAHAM, S.C., COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 24, 2015 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear

More information