IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
|
|
- Pierce Small
- 3 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 1:19-cv TCB Document 12 Filed 05/21/19 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION EILEEN CARR, CLAYTON KOLB, SAMUEL STANTON, DONRICH YOUNG, JANE DOE I, JANE DOE II, and JANE DOE III, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs, GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY, INC., and GRAND CANYON EDUCATION, INC. d/b/a GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY, Defendants. Case No cv TCB RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION Plaintiffs Eileen Carr and Samuel Stanton ( Plaintiffs hereby oppose the Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Defendants Grand Canyon University, Inc. and Grand Canyon Education, Inc. d/b/a Grand Canyon University (collectively, GCU. Shockingly, even though GCU has no right to demand arbitration based on binding federal regulations, Defendants have moved to compel arbitration without even mentioning the applicable regulations to the Court. Even more
2 Case 1:19-cv TCB Document 12 Filed 05/21/19 Page 2 of 15 indefensible is the fact that GCU is attempting to compel arbitration despite publicly informing its students that it will not enforce its arbitration clause. In light of these facts, GCU s request to compel arbitration must be rejected. A. The Borrower Defense Regulations Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 ( HEA, 20 U.S.C. 1070, et seq., empowers the Secretary of Education to assist in making available the benefits of postsecondary education to eligible students... in institutions of higher education by providing various types of financial aid. Id. at 1070(a. The William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program ( Direct Loan Program allows students who attend participating institutions of higher education to obtain direct loans from the federal government to pay for their educational expenses. Id. at 1087a(a. Institutions of higher education that are selected to participate in the Direct Loan Program must enter into an agreement with the Secretary of Education that is allowed to include any provisions the Secretary determines are necessary to protect the interests of the United States and to promote the purposes of the Direct Loan Program. Id. at 1087d(a(6, 1087c. Moreover, the Secretary has the authority to make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and amend rules and regulations governing the Direct Loan Program. Id. at 1221e-3. In administering the Direct 2
3 Case 1:19-cv TCB Document 12 Filed 05/21/19 Page 3 of 15 Loan Program, the Secretary must also specify in regulations which acts or omissions of an institution of higher education a borrower may assert as a defense to repayment of a loan made under the Direct Loan Program. Id. at 1087e(h. On November 1, 2016, the Department of Education promulgated the Borrower Defense Regulations. See 81 Fed. Reg. 75,926 (Nov. 1, The Regulations, which had an effective date of July 1, 2017, were designed to protect student loan borrowers from misleading, deceitful, and predatory practices of, and failures to fulfill contractual promises by, institutions participating in the Department s student aid programs. Id. at 75,926. Among the ways that the Department sought to protect student loan borrowers, and taxpayers, was to prohibit schools participating in the Direct Loan Program from enforcing mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration agreements and/or class action waivers. Id. at 75, Just two weeks prior to the Borrower Defense Regulations becoming effective, newly appointed Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos issued a Delay Notice that was published on June 16, See 82 Fed. Reg. 27,621. The Department did not engage in notice and comment or the formal rulemaking process prior to issuing the Delay Notice. The Department s attempt to delay the effective date of the Regulations resulted in three cases being filed against the 3
4 Case 1:19-cv TCB Document 12 Filed 05/21/19 Page 4 of 15 Department challenging the legality of the Delay Notice on various grounds. See Massachusetts v. U.S. Dep t of Educ., No. 1:17-cv RDM (D.D.C. filed July 6, 2017; Bauer v. U.S. Dep t of Educ., No. 1:17-cv (D.D.C. filed July 6, 2017; Wright v. DeVos, No. 3:17-cv PK (D. Or. filed July 9, Bauer and Massachusetts were consolidated and litigation proceeded to summary judgment. On September 12, 2018, the District Court entered an order granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and denying the Department s cross-motion. See Bauer v. DeVos, 325 F. Supp. 3d 74 (D.D.C Subsequently, the district court entered an order on September 17, 2018 vacating the Delay Notice (see 82 Fed. Reg. 27,621 and the Final Delay Rule dated February 14, 2018 (see 83 Fed. Reg. 6,458. See Bauer v. DeVos, 2018 WL (D.D.C. Sept. 17, The orders made it clear that the Borrower Defense Regulations would be effective following a 30-day window during which the Department would have an opportunity to remedy deficiencies identified in the Delay Notice. Id. The Department subsequently announced it would not seek a delay of this ruling. E.g., Andrew Kreighbaum, DeVos Won t Seek Another Delay of Obama Borrower Defense Rule, Inside Higher Educ., Oct. 13, 2018 (Exh. 1 hereto. Thus, the Borrower Defense Regulations are now in effect. 4
5 Case 1:19-cv TCB Document 12 Filed 05/21/19 Page 5 of 15 B. The Borrower Defense Regulations Preclude GCU From Seeking Arbitration in this Case. The Borrower Defense Regulations preclude the enforcement of GCU s arbitration clause. See 81 Fed. Reg (prohibiting schools from relying on an arbitration agreement to seek the dismissal, deferral, or stay of any aspect of a class action. The plain language of the Borrower Defense Regulations made it clear that the Department was amend[ing] the Direct Loan Program regulations to prohibit participating schools from using certain contractual provisions regarding dispute resolution processes, such as predispute arbitration agreements or class action waivers. Id.; see also 81 Fed. Reg. at 75,927 ( The final regulations also prohibit a school participating in the Direct Loan Program from obtaining an agreement, either in an arbitration agreement or in another form, that a borrower waive his or her right to initiate or participate in a class action lawsuit regarding such claims. The Borrower Defense Regulations also called for the amendment of 34 C.F.R to eliminate the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements, whether or not they are mandatory, to resolve claims brought by a borrower against the school that could also form the basis of a borrower defense or to prevent a student who has obtained or benefited from a Direct Loan from participating in a class action suit related to borrower defense claim. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 76,049. 5
6 Case 1:19-cv TCB Document 12 Filed 05/21/19 Page 6 of 15 The Borrower Defense Regulations also made it clear that pre-existing arbitration agreements between a participating school and a student could not be enforced. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 76,067. Specifically, the regulations provided: Institutions that incorporated predispute arbitration agreements with Direct Loan program borrowers prior to the effective date of the final regulations must provide borrowers with agreements or notices containing specific language regarding a borrower s right to file a lawsuit against the institution when the class action concerns acts or omissions surrounding the making of the Direct Loan or provision of educational services purchased with the Direct. Id. (emphasis added. C. GCU s Public Pronouncements Regarding Arbitration. As required by the Borrower Defense Regulations, GCU has recently sent communications to students who were purportedly subject to pre-dispute arbitration agreements informing them that they are allowed to file a lawsuit, including a class action lawsuit and are not required to pursue such a claim in arbitration. See GCU (Exh. 2 hereto. The , in its entirety, reads as follows: Dear Student, You are receiving this notice in light of the recent guidance from the Department of Education concerning certain provisions of the 2016 Borrower Defense to Repayment Regulations. Please note that GCU removed all predispute arbitration language from its Enrollment Agreements (EA in June 2017, prior to these regulations taking 6
7 Case 1:19-cv TCB Document 12 Filed 05/21/19 Page 7 of 15 effect; however, given you signed your EA prior to June 2017, this notice applies to you. GCU agrees not to use any predispute agreement to stop you from being part of a class action lawsuit in court or bringing a lawsuit if you assert a borrower defense claim, as that term is defined in 34 CFR (i(1. You may file a lawsuit, including a class action lawsuit, regarding such a claim or you may be a member of a class action lawsuit regarding such a claim even if you do not file it. This provision applies only to claims concerning our acts or omissions regarding the making of the Federal Direct Loan or the provision by us of educational services for which the Federal Direct Loan was obtained. This provision does not apply to any other claims. We agree that only the court is to decide whether a claim asserted in the lawsuit is a borrower defense claim. What Does this Mean? Students who enrolled at GCU after June 2017 do not have arbitration agreements or class action waivers in their Enrollment Agreements. Students who enrolled prior to June 2017 may have arbitration agreements and class action waivers in their Enrollment Agreements, but GCU will not enforce those arbitration agreements and class action waivers if the student asserts a borrower defense claim against GCU. Please contact your Student Services Counselor with any questions. Sincerely, Grand Canyon University Id. GCU s pronouncement could not be clearer it will not use any pre-dispute agreement to stop students from being part of a class action lawsuit. This public repudiation of its arbitration rights is binding on GCU. E.g., Bailey v. Bicknell 7
8 Case 1:19-cv TCB Document 12 Filed 05/21/19 Page 8 of 15 Minerals, Inc., 819 F.2d 690, 692 (7th Cir. 1987; Int l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local 159 v. Circuit Elec., LLC, 2005 WL , at *2 (W.D. Wisc. Dec. 9, 2005 ( When a party to an agreement proclaims that it no longer considers the obligation to arbitrate binding, then a request to arbitrate is futile and the other side may proceed directly to court. GCU s attempt to walk back its repudiation of arbitration must be rejected. D. Plaintiffs Claims Clearly Relate to the Provision of Educational Services for Which Federal Direct Loans Were Obtained. Despite failing to even acknowledge the Borrower Defense Regulations in the motion, it is anticipated that GCU will attempt to argue that Plaintiffs claims are not subject to the prohibition on pre-dispute agreements. Such an argument, however, would be entirely without merit. Both the Borrower Defense Regulations and GCU s public pronouncement state that GCU cannot use a pre-dispute agreement to stop Plaintiffs from being part of a class action lawsuit or bringing a lawsuit if they assert a borrower defense claim, as that term is defined in 34 C.F.R (i(1. The claims asserted by Ms. Carr and Mr. Stanton as well as the other Plaintiffs qualify as a borrower defense claim. Section (i(1 defines the term Borrower defense claim as a claim that is or could be asserted as a borrower defense as defined in (a(5. 34 C.F.R (a(5, provides, a borrower defense refers 8
9 Case 1:19-cv TCB Document 12 Filed 05/21/19 Page 9 of 15 to an act or omission of the school attended by the student that relates to the making of a Direct Loan for enrollment at the school or the provision of educational services for which the loan was provided. (emphasis added. Plaintiffs claims relate to the provision of educational services by GCU for which the loans at issue were provided. See Amended Complaint, 52, 64. Both Ms. Carr and Mr. Stanton clearly allege that they took out Direct Loans to pursue their doctoral programs at GCU. Id. Similarly, both Plaintiffs take issue with GCU s provision of the educational services the doctoral program for which they took out those loans. Id. at 52-56, Any suggestion that Plaintiffs claims do not relate to the provision of educational services for which the loan was provided is baseless. E. Only this Court Is Allowed to Determine Whether Plaintiffs Claims Relate to the Provision of Educational Services for Which the Loan Was Provided. In their motion, Defendants contend that any issues relating to the scope or validity of the arbitration agreement must be decided by an arbitrator and not this Court. See Dkt. No. 7-1, pp This argument is also contradicted by the Borrower Defense Regulations and GCU s public pronouncement. The Borrower Defense Regulations explicitly provide that only the court is to decide whether a claim asserted in the lawsuit is a claim regarding the making of 9
10 Case 1:19-cv TCB Document 12 Filed 05/21/19 Page 10 of 15 the Direct Loan or the provision of educational services for which the loan was obtained. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 76,030. GCU s to its students contains the same language: We agree that only the court is to decide whether a claim asserted in the lawsuit is a borrower defense claim. See Exh. 2. It is clear that only this Court is empowered to make this determination. GCU s attempt to ignore this unequivocal requirement must be rejected. F. No GCU Affiliate Is Entitled to Compel Arbitration. GCU also contends that Grand Canyon Education, Inc. is allowed to enforce the arbitration clause. See Dkt. No. 7-1, pp This argument fails for two reasons. First, since GCU does not have the right to rely on its pre-existing arbitration agreement as a result of the Borrower Defense Regulations, it is obvious that Grand Canyon Education does not have these rights either. Defendants admit that GCE s purported right to seek arbitration springs from GCU s contractual rights. Because GCU s contractual rights have been extinguished, so to have GCE s. GCE s argument also fails because it was the entity that contracted with Ms. Carr and Mr. Stanton for educational services and those contracts are the ones that contained the arbitration agreements and class action waivers that cannot be enforced. GCU s recent public pronouncement informed its students that those 10
11 Case 1:19-cv TCB Document 12 Filed 05/21/19 Page 11 of 15 who enrolled prior to June 2017 may have arbitration agreements and class action waivers in their Enrollment Agreements, but GCU will not enforce those arbitration agreements and class action waivers if the student asserts a borrower defense claim against GCU. See Exh. 3 (emphasis added. Both Ms. Carr and Mr. Stanton have arbitration agreements in Enrollment Agreements that predate June See Decl. of Kathleen Hall, 7, 9 (establishing dates of August 2012 and May 2014 respectively (Dkt. No In light of the fact that GCU was being operated by Grand Canyon Education during this time period, GCU s pronouncement clearly applies to any contractual rights that Grand Canyon Education might have had prior selling the university to a new entity. The fact that Grand Canyon Education recently sold the university to a new entity, Grand Canyon University, Inc., (see Dkt. No. 7-1, p. 18 does not mean that it is not bound by the Borrower Defense Regulations or GCU s public pronouncements. Defendants suggestions to the contrary should be rejected. G. GCU and Its Counsel Have Full Knowledge of the Regulations. In light of the fact that the Borrower Defense Regulations are now in effect, GCU s failure to even mention them in the arbitration motion is astounding. GCU is well aware of the Borrower Defense Regulations and their impact on this case, having dealt with this issue in a separate case styled Ward v. Grand Canyon 11
12 Case 1:19-cv TCB Document 12 Filed 05/21/19 Page 12 of 15 Education, Inc., Case No. 17-A (Gwinnett Super. Ct.. In Ward, GCU initially prevailed on its arbitration motion, only to have the Georgia Court of Appeals vacate the judgment and remand the case based on the Borrower Defense Regulations. See Opinion (Exh. 3 hereto. GCU s failure to even mention the Borrower Defense Regulations within its Memorandum of Law see Dkt. No. 7-1 can only be viewed as an attempt to either mislead the Court or gain an improper advantage by sandbagging Plaintiffs. Why else would GCU fail to address this dispositive issue? Due to Defendants strategy, Plaintiffs are left to guess as to what arguments Defendants may make in their reply as to why the Borrower Defense Regulations are not applicable. Given Defendants decision to employ this strategy, Plaintiffs anticipate seeking leave to file a sur-reply brief to address the new arguments that will be raised in Defendants reply brief. GCU s failure to notify the Court about the Borrower Defense Regulations could be sanctionable. E.g., Nelson v. Patel, 2009 WL , at *5 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2009 (entering show cause order as to why party should not be sanctioned for failure to acknowledge controlling authority; Cousin v. D.C., 142 F.R.D. 574, 577 (D.D.C (imposing sanctions under Rule 11 for failure to disclose controlling authority in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct
13 Case 1:19-cv TCB Document 12 Filed 05/21/19 Page 13 of 15 Given the controlling nature of the Borrower Defense Regulations, GCU had an obligation to disclose them to the Court. See Ga. Rule of Prof. Conduct 3.3(a(3. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs claims against GCU relate to the provision of educational services for which Federal Direct Loans were obtained. Therefore, the Borrower Defense Regulations explicitly preclude GCU from seeking to compel arbitration. Furthermore, the Court should hold GCU to its pubic pronouncement that it will not enforce arbitration when students assert a borrower defense claim against GCU. The motion to compel arbitration must be denied. 13
14 Case 1:19-cv TCB Document 12 Filed 05/21/19 Page 14 of 15 DATED this 21st day of May, Respectfully submitted, BY: WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC /s/ E. Adam Webb E. Adam Webb Georgia Bar No G. Franklin Lemond, Jr. Georgia Bar No The Exchange, S.E. Suite 480 Atlanta, Georgia ( ( (fax Attorneys for Plaintiffs 14
15 Case 1:19-cv TCB Document 12 Filed 05/21/19 Page 15 of 15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 21st day of May, 2019, I caused the foregoing document to be electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which automatically sends notification of such filing to all attorneys of record. /s/ G. Franklin Lemond, Jr. G. Franklin Lemond, Jr. 15
Case 3:05-cv-07309-JGC Document 170 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 1 of 7
Case 3:05-cv-07309-JGC Document 170 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ) LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS ) OF OHIO, et al., ) Plaintiffs,
More informationCase: 2:07-cv-00039-JCH Doc. #: 20 Filed: 10/03/07 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageid>
Case: 2:07-cv-00039-JCH Doc. #: 20 Filed: 10/03/07 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI NORTHERN DIVISION MARY DOWELL, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2:07-CV-39
More informationHEADNOTE: Kevin Mooney, et ux. v. University System of Maryland, No. 302, Sept. Term, 2007 SECURED TRANSACTIONS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
HEADNOTE: Kevin Mooney, et ux. v. University System of Maryland, No. 302, Sept. Term, 2007 SECURED TRANSACTIONS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY The State, in its position as a payor on an account, which account exists
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012 Opinion filed September 19, 2012. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-353 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Memorandum and Order
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA PLAINTIFF S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION MICHAEL GLENN WHITE, et. al. Plaintiffs v. VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION; et. al., Defendants. Case No. 3:00CV386
More information128 FERC 61,269 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ORDER APPROVING UNCONTESTED SETTLEMENT. (Issued September 21, 2009)
128 FERC 61,269 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, Marc Spitzer, and Philip D. Moeller. Energy Transfer Partners
More informationjurisdiction is DENIED and plaintiff s motion for leave to amend is DENIED. BACKGROUND
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 TRICIA LECKLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Plaintiffs, CASHCALL, INC., Defendant. /
More informationCase 1:10-cv-10170-NMG Document 38 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 9. United States District Court District of Massachusetts MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Case 1:10-cv-10170-NMG Document 38 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 9 WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. JAMES CZECH and WILLIAMS BUILDING COMPANY, INC., Defendants. United States District Court
More informationCase 2:06-cv-02026-CM Document 114 Filed 03/10/09 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:06-cv-02026-CM Document 114 Filed 03/10/09 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ) METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CIVIL ACTION v.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 3:13-cv-30138-MGM Document 100 Filed 08/12/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS PREFERRED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 13-30138-MGM LEONARD
More informationCase 2:13-cv-02349-ILRL-KWR Document 31 Filed 02/26/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO.
Case 2:13-cv-02349-ILRL-KWR Document 31 Filed 02/26/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA PUBLIC PAYPHONE COMPANY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 13-2349 WAL-MART STORES, INC.
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Document Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION IN RE: MICHAEL TODD CHRISLEY, Chapter 7 Case No. 13-56132-MGD Debtor. JASON L. PETTIE, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE
More informationCase 1:03-cr-00422-LEK Document 24 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 7. Petitioner, Respondent. MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER 1
Case 1:03-cr-00422-LEK Document 24 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PATRICK GILBERT, Petitioner, -against- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1:05-CV-0325 (LEK)
More informationCase 1:11-cv-01314-RC Document 27 Filed 07/30/12 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:11-cv-01314-RC Document 27 Filed 07/30/12 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATE SECTOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, Plaintiff, v. Civil
More informationCase 2:06-cv-04937-KSH-PS Document 36 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 2:06-cv-04937-KSH-PS Document 36 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY NOT FOR PUBLICATION SAMUEL G. JONES, et. Al., Plaintiff, v. Civ. Action No. 06-4937
More informationCase 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION JAMES E. TOMLINSON and DARLENE TOMLINSON, his wife, v. Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER ) NOE RODRIGUEZ, ) Complainant, ) 8 U.S.C. 1324b Proceeding ) v. ) OCAHO Case
More informationCase: 1:14-cv-06113 Document #: 45 Filed: 03/22/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:299
Case: 1:14-cv-06113 Document #: 45 Filed: 03/22/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:299 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MARIE RODGERS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 14 C 6113
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 2319. September Term, 2012 MARY LYONS KENNETH HAUTMAN A/K/A JOHN HAUTMAN
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2319 September Term, 2012 MARY LYONS v. KENNETH HAUTMAN A/K/A JOHN HAUTMAN Zarnoch, Graeff, Moylan, Charles E. Jr. (Retired, Specially Assigned),
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 05-14678. D. C. Docket No. 04-02317-CV-2-IPJ. versus
[PUBLISH] DENNIS HARDY, HENRIETTA HARDY, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 05-14678 D. C. Docket No. 04-02317-CV-2-IPJ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAY
More informationUNITED 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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Wills v. USP-Canaan et al Doc. 81 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CHRISTOPHER WILLS, : No. 3:13cv1787 Plaintiff : : (Judge Munley) v. : : (Chief Magistrate Judge
More informationHow To Decide If A Shipyard Can Pay For A Boatyard
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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-10002 Document: 00512511432 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/24/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED January 24, 2014 PAMELA
More informationCase 1:13-cv-11596-NMG Document 41 Filed 09/29/14 Page 1 of 12. United States District Court District of Massachusetts
Case 1:13-cv-11596-NMG Document 41 Filed 09/29/14 Page 1 of 12 United States District Court District of Massachusetts BRIAN LENFEST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
More information#:1509 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :0-cv-000-CJC -MAN Document #:0 Filed 0// Page of Page ID JS- 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION IMAN DAUOD, individually, ROGER O DONNELL, and on behalf
More informationCase 2:10-cv-00741-GMN-LRL Document 10 Filed 08/17/10 Page 1 of 6
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
More informationClient Alert. When Is Qui Tam False Claims Act Litigation Based Upon Prior Public Disclosure and Who Qualifies as Original Source of Information?
Contact Attorneys Regarding This Matter: Aaron M. Danzig 404.873.8504 direct aaron.danzig@agg.com W. Jerad Rissler 404.873.8780 direct jerad.rissler@agg.com Client Alert When Is Qui Tam False Claims Act
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA M E M O R A N D U M. STENGEL, J. November, 2005
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE : COMPANY of AMERICA, : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff : : v. : NO. 04-462 : PAUL M. PRUSKY, : STEVEN G. PRUSKY,
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 19 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation, v. Plaintiff
More informationNo. 02-10190 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT LUCINDA G. MILLER; ELAINE KING-MILLER, Plaintiffs-Appellees
No. 02-10190 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT LUCINDA G. MILLER; ELAINE KING-MILLER, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, Defendant-Appellant
More informationMOHAVE COUNTY JUSTICE COURT. If you want to file a SMALL CLAIMS ANSWER
MOHAVE COUNTY JUSTICE COURT If you want to file a SMALL CLAIMS ANSWER MOHAVE COUNTY JUSTICE COURT You (the defendant) have TWENTY (20) calendar days to file an answer to the small claims complaint. The
More informationCase 1:10-cv-01196-RCL Document 94 Filed 11/08/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-01196-RCL Document 94 Filed 11/08/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RANDALL ROYER, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 10-cv-1196 No. 10-cv-1996 Judge Royce
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) COMMISSION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 09 C 5291 v. ) ) Judge Sara L. Ellis UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,
More informationCase 5:13-cv-05070-JLV Document 21 Filed 09/26/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 157
Case 5:13-cv-05070-JLV Document 21 Filed 09/26/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 157 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION BATTLE FLAT, LLC, a South Dakota, Limited
More informationORIGINAL. Beatrice Herrera None Present CLERK. U.S.DISTRICT COURT
' 3 ORIGINAL D " S C O N S n r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F m T R Y BY FRc~RULE._._. --.- --- AS R E Q U I ~ ~ ~ priority 7/...-.. F::! n STATES DISTRICT COURT AL I,.!CENTRALDISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ' clased JS-5IJS-6
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HOWARD MEDICAL, INC. t/a CIVIL ACTION ADVANCE AMBULANCE SERVICE, NO. 00-5977 Plaintiff, v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, t/a TEMPLE
More informationCase 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 521 Filed 10/27/14 Page 1 of 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 521 Filed 10/27/14 Page 1 of 7 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) TOWN OF COLORADO CITY,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION E-WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-12-3314 LOREX CANADA, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Pending before the
More information3:12-cv-03107-SEM-BGC # 43 Page 1 of 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION OPINION
3:12-cv-03107-SEM-BGC # 43 Page 1 of 26 E-FILED Thursday, 19 December, 2013 03:21:32 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JEFF SALSIEDER, v. Plaintiff, OPINION
More informationCase 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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT J. BIRCH, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION
More informationPlaintiff, Defendants. (1) Plaintiff s Motions to Strike, docket nos. 158 and 164, are DENIED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE WANDA DAVIS, v. THE CITY OF SEATTLE, and MICHAEL KORLING, Plaintiff, Defendants. No. C0-Z ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court
More informationCase 4:13-cv-01672 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/31/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Case 4:13-cv-01672 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/31/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION MARLO HOWARD, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM. BUCKWALTER, J. May 8, 2002
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 01-0272 M. ROBERT ULLMAN, Defendant. MEMORANDUM BUCKWALTER, J. May
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE : AL JAZEERA AMERICA, LLC, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : C.A. No. 8823-VCG : AT&T SERVICES, INC., : : Defendant. : : MOTION TO STAY OCTOBER 14, 2013 LETTER OPINION
More informationCase 8:11-cv-01364-RWT Document 18 Filed 09/15/11 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 8:11-cv-01364-RWT Document 18 Filed 09/15/11 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Debra Lampton, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Case No.: RWT 11cv1364 v. Household
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
Davies et al v. Attorney General of the United States et al Doc. 35 JEFF DAVIES and MANUELA DAVIES, Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION -vs- Case No. 6:10-cv-1622-Orl-31GJK
More informationFEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. ST. LOUIS TITLE, LLC, Dist...
Page 1 of 5 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for AmTrust Bank, Plaintiff, v. ST. LOUIS TITLE, LLC, Defendants. No. 4:13 CV 1078 RWS. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 5:13-cv-04137-JWL-JPO Document 16 Filed 02/04/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, for the use and benefit of LAWRENCE KEVIN WRIGHT,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. STEPHEN J. HARMELIN, RECEIVER AD LITEM, et al. : v.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA STEPHEN J. HARMELIN, RECEIVER AD LITEM, et al. : CIVIL ACTION v. : MAN FINANCIAL INC., et al. : NO. 06-1944 MEMORANDUM RE: UBS
More informationCase 1:12-cv-06677-JSR Document 77 Filed 09/16/14 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:12-cv-06677-JSR Document 77 Filed 09/16/14 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------x EDWARD ZYBURO, on behalf of himself and all
More informationCase: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172
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
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCTION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 1 1 BENNETT HASELTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. QUICKEN LOANS, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. C0-RSL FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON. TALMAGE CRUMP v. KIMBERLY BELL
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON TALMAGE CRUMP v. KIMBERLY BELL A Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. 85116-6 The Honorable George H. Brown, Jr., Judge No. W1999-00673-COA-R3-CV
More informationCase 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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 12/3/14 Backflip Software v. Cisco Systems CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B254585
Filed 2/26/15 Vega v. Goradia CA2/5 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 informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 15-611 In the Supreme Court of the United States FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
More informationCase 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 ORDER
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
More informationCase 2:14-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 63 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 353
Case 2:14-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 63 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 353 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, v. Plaintiff,
More informationCase 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 informationNEW YORK SUPREME COURT - QUEENS COUNTY. PRESENT: HON. ORIN R. KITZES PART 17 Justice
Short Form Order NEW YORK SUPREME COURT - QUEENS COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ORIN R. KITZES PART 17 Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------X SECURITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
ORLANDO COMMUNICATIONS LLC, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION Plaintiff, v. Case No: 6:14-cv-1022-Orl-22KRS SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P. and SPRINT CORPORATION, Defendants.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN STEVEN OLSON, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 12-C-1126 BEMIS COMPANY, INC. et al., Defendants. DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
More informationChallenging 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 informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 8/27/14 Tesser Ruttenberg etc. v. Forever Entertainment CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying
More informationUNITED 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 informationCase 4:14-cv-00415-BRW Document 51 Filed 02/02/16 Page 1 of 6
Case 4:14-cv-00415-BRW Document 51 Filed 02/02/16 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CLAUDE D. WALLACE, as Trustee of the Claude D. Wallace
More information"(b) If so, should installation operating funds be used for this purpose?"
\ ~~/ g65-r7 sitj > THE * COMPTROLLER GENERAL DECISION >½h7;,. OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON. D. C. 2054B FILE: B-199291 DATE: June 19, 1981 MATTER OF:EEO Regulations - Attorney Fees DIGEST: 1. Title
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF ) TECHNOLOGY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. v. ) 15-10374-FDS ) MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.; ) APPLE, INC.; ELPIDA
More informationDEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS
Case :0-cv-00-EHC Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DANIEL KNAUSS United States Attorney THEODORE C. HIRT Assistant Branch Director Civil Division, Federal Programs
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND JANICE A. ST. GERMAIN, : Plaintiff, : : v. : C.A. No. 12-113S : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Defendant. : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Plaintiff
More informationOpinion Designated for Electronic Use, But Not for Print Publication IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 02 day of October, 2007. Dale L. Somers UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Opinion Designated for Electronic Use, But Not for Print Publication IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION BRIAN Z. FRANCE, v. MEGAN P. FRANCE, Plaintiff, Defendant. Case No. 3:11-CV-00186 PLAINTIFF S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
More informationCase 2:08-cv-04597-LDD Document 17 Filed 02/05/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:08-cv-04597-LDD Document 17 Filed 02/05/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SUZANNE BUTLER, Individually and as : Administratrix of the Estate
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
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
More informationCase 2:10-cv-00802-CW Document 90 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:10-cv-00802-CW Document 90 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION MURIELLE MOLIERE, Plaintiff, v. OPTION ONE MORTGAGE, et al., Defendants.
More informationCase 8:13-cv-01731-VMC-TBM Document 36 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 134 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
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
More informationCase 3:05-cv-01771-G Document 35 Filed 06/30/06 Page 1 of 6 PageID 288 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:05-cv-01771-G Document 35 Filed 06/30/06 Page 1 of 6 PageID 288 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JOEL N. COHEN, VS. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, NCO FINANCIAL
More informationNOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
A FEDERAL COURT ORDERED THIS NOTICE. THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION FROM A LAWYER. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Soutter v. Equifax Information Services, LLC Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-107
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Franke v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. et al Doc. 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In re BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil No. 1cv JM (JLB)
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION SARAH C. YARNEY, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:09-cv-00050 v. MEMORANDUM OPINION WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. ET AL,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM. McLaughlin, J. February 4, 2015
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PIOTR NOWAK : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER, LLC, : et al. : NO. 14-3503 MEMORANDUM McLaughlin, J. February 4, 2015
More information2015 IL App (1st) 143589-U. No. 1-14-3589 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 143589-U SIXTH DIVISION September 11, 2015 No. 1-14-3589 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:-cv-0-EMC Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AF HOLDINGS LLC, No. C-- EMC 0 v. JOE NAVASCA, Plaintiff, Defendant. / ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF S MOTION
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 13-3229 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ANTHONY BAILEY, v. Plaintiff-Appellee. Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court
More informationCase 4:08-cv-00142-MHS-ALM Document 58 Filed 06/30/2009 Page 1 of 9
Case 4:08-cv-00142-MHS-ALM Document 58 Filed 06/30/2009 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Case No. 4:08-CV-142
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 11-13737. D.C. Docket Nos. 8:10-cv-02360-VMC ; 8:90-bk-10016-PMG
Case: 11-13737 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-13737 [DO NOT PUBLISH] D.C. Docket Nos. 8:10-cv-02360-VMC ; 8:90-bk-10016-PMG In
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EXPLANATION AND ORDER
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
More informationT.C. Memo. 2015-26 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. RICHARD E. SNYDER AND MARION B. SNYDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2015-26 UNITED STATES TAX COURT RICHARD E. SNYDER AND MARION B. SNYDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent RICHARD E. SNYDER AND MARION SNYDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER
More informationCase 4:13-cv-01672 Document 94 Filed in TXSD on 10/09/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Case 4:13-cv-01672 Document 94 Filed in TXSD on 10/09/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION MARLO HOWARD AND SPENCER ARRIOLA, Individually and On Behalf
More informationCase 5:10-cv-01025-OLG Document 150 Filed 11/12/12 Page 1 of 6
Case 5:10-cv-01025-OLG Document 150 Filed 11/12/12 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION Hon. Orlando Garcia ERIC STEWARD, by his next friend
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 11-14316 Non-Argument Calendar
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-14316 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket Nos. 1:09-md-02036-JLK, 1:09-cv-23632-JLK In Re: CHECKING ACCOUNT OVERDRAFT LITIGATION lllllllllllllmdl
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ARISTA RECORDS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; BMG MUSIC,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: LOUIS T. PERRY HARMONY A. MAPPES Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: ALICE BARTANEN BLEVINS Salem, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA GREEN TREE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 10-10304. D. C. Docket No. 0:09-cv-60016-WPD. versus
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 10-10304 D. C. Docket No. 0:09-cv-60016-WPD HOLLYWOOD MOBILE ESTATES LIMITED, a Florida Limited Partnership, versus MITCHELL CYPRESS,
More informationCase 1:05-cv-01378-RLY-TAB Document 25 Filed 01/27/2006 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
Case 1:05-cv-01378-RLY-TAB Document 25 Filed 01/27/2006 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION VICKIE THORNBURG, Plaintiff, vs. STRYKER CORPORATION,
More information