1 Case :0-cv-0-SI Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 0 HYPERTOUCH, INC., a California corporation, v. Plaintiff, KENNEDY-WESTERN UNIVERSITY, a Wyoming corporation, Defendant. / No. C 0-0 SI ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT On February, 0, the Court heard oral argument on defendant Kennedy-Western University s motion for summary judgment. Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the arguments of counsel, and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS defendant s motion for the reasons set forth below. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Hypertouch, Inc., is a California corporation run by James Joseph Wagner. Wagner started the company in order to develop haptic computer peripherals, although no such products have been released yet. Hypertouch also provides services through servers located in California. For the most part, these services are provided free of charge. J. Wagner Decl. -,. Defendant Kennedy-Western University (KWU) is an online university offering bachelors and graduate degrees in many areas of study to mid-career professional(s). KWU focuses its marketing on Internet advertising, including advertising; it has in the past contracted with Peak Advertising and Boca A haptic computer peripheral would seem to be one that can move in the user s hand. See J. Wagner Dep. at :-.
2 Case :0-cv-0-SI Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 Networks for its advertising campaigns. Patterson Decl.,. Plaintiff has filed suit alleging violations of U.S.C. 0(a)() (part of the CAN-SPAM Act of 0) and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code., seeking damages as well as injunctive relief. Both claims allege violations stemming from plaintiff s receipt of unsolicited advertising for KWU that does not comply with the standards outlined in these two statutes. Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 0 LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. (c)). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, U.S., (). The moving party, however, has no burden to negate or disprove matters on which the non-moving party will have the burden of proof at trial. The moving party need only point out to the Court that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case. See id. at. The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp., U.S. at (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. (e)). To carry this burden, the non-moving party must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., U.S., (). The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence... will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party]. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., U.S., (). In a motion for summary judgment, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor. See id. at. Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge... ruling on a motion for
3 Case :0-cv-0-SI Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 summary judgment. Id. 0 DISCUSSION I. Defendant s Motion for Summary Judgment on Violation of the CAN-SPAM Act Plaintiff alleges a violation of U.S.C 0 (a)(), which makes it unlawful for any person to initiate the transmission, to a protected computer, of a commercial electronic mail message, or a transactional or relationship message, that contains, or is accompanied by, header information that is materially false or materially misleading. Plaintiff claims that the header information at issue contained domain names which were registered to false non-existent entities using false addresses. Compl.. Plaintiff further alleges a violation of U.S.C. 0(a)()(iii), which makes it unlawful for any person to initiate the transmission of any commercial electronic mail message to a protected computer unless the message provides a valid physical postal address of the sender. Finally, plaintiff alleges an aggravated violation of the CAN-SPAM Act which makes it unlawful for any person to initiate the transmission of a message that is unlawful under section 0(a), or assist in the origination of such a message by providing or selecting recipient addresses, where: such person had actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances, that (i) the electronic mail address of the recipient was obtained using an automated means from an Internet website or proprietary online service operated by another person, and such website or online service included, at the time it was obtained, a notice stating that the operator of such website or online service will not give, sell, or otherwise transfer addresses maintained by such website or online service to any other party for the purposes of initiating, or enabling others to initiate, electronic mail messages; or (ii) the electronic mail address of the recipient was obtained using an automated means that generates possible electronic mail addresses by combining names, letters, or numbers into numerous permutations. U.S.C. 0(b)()(A). Plaintiff alleges a violation of both above subsections, alleging that defendant used automated means to obtain addresses from a website as well as automated means that generates possible addresses by
4 Case :0-cv-0-SI Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 0 combining names, letters, or numbers. Plaintiff asserts it has standing pursuant to U.S.C. 0(g)(), which allows suit by a provider of Internet access service adversely affected by a violation of the CAN-SPAM Act. KWU contends that it did not initiate any s to Hypertouch as required by each of the CAN-SPAM Act sections alleged in the complaint, and that Hypertouch does not qualify as a provider of Internet access service ( ISP ) within the meaning of the CAN-SPAM Act. The standing issue will be addressed first. A. Is Hypertouch a Provider of Internet Access Service? U.S.C. 0() defines Internet access service as having the meaning given in the Communications Act of, which provides: The term Internet access service means a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet, and may also include access to proprietary content, information, and other services as part of a package of services offered to consumers. Such term does not include telecommunications services. U.S.C. (e)(). KWU asserts that Hypertouch does not provide access to the Internet within the meaning of this statute since its servers are connected to the Internet through DSL lines provided by ISPs Megapath, Speakeasy, and SBC. KWU points to a Senate Report naming AOL, Microsoft, and Earthlink as examples of ISPs, and distinguishes Hypertouch from these companies since Hypertouch does not offer service packages or monthly rates and allegedly has no customers. See REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION ON S., S. REP. NO. 0, 0th Cong., st Sess. - (0). KWU also contends that Hypertouch is not adversely affected as required by Section 0(g)() of the CAN-SPAM Act, since the number of KWU spam messages was a minuscule percentage of the total number of spam messages received by Hypertouch over a two-year period, and that Hypertouch in any case does not own the domains and addresses to which the s were directed. Finally, KWU also points to Hypertouch s alleged failure to use spam filtering software on its servers
5 Case :0-cv-0-SI Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 0 or opt-out from KWU s as further evidence of a lack of adverse affect. Hypertouch contends that KWU s interpretation of Internet access service would limit standing under the Act to a few select corporations. Hypertouch argues that it qualifies as an ISP because it operates servers that support over two dozen domains and host over 0 accounts. Wagner Decl.. Hypertouch asserts that it has provided in discovery over,000 mail messages sent to its servers, mail server logs, screen captures, and declarations from three of its customers. Id. at 0. Most of Hypertouch s customers receive services at no charge. Id. at. An examination of the statutory language and congressional intent indicates that Hypertouch should be considered to be a provider of Internet access service for purposes of the Act. The plain language of the statute indicates that a provider of service alone, without any other services, qualifies as an ISP. See U.S.C. (e)() ( The term Internet access service means a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet ). While the ISP may also provide access to other services as part of a package, this is not a requirement. Id. Furthermore, the Senate Report notes that one of the justifications for the Act is that ISPs must respond to rising volumes of spam by investing in new equipment to increase capacity, and also bear higher costs related to spam filtering and dealing with customer complaints. It also notes that free services may be forced to downsize as costs of spam increase. See REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION ON S., S. REP. NO. 0, 0th Cong., st Sess. (0). Hypertouch administers its own servers, and is therefore the entity that is potentially forced to increase its capacity due to spam sent to addresses hosted by those servers, regardless of who is listed as owning the domains associated with those servers. That Hypertouch provides service at no charge does nothing to change this fact. In any case, the negative effect of spam on free services was explicitly considered by Congress in passing the CAN-SPAM Act. The means by which an server is connected to the Internet, be it a DSL line or a direct connection, is irrelevant
6 Case :0-cv-0-SI Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 0 since the server storage space taken up by spam is identical regardless of how that server connects to the Internet. As for adverse affect, Hypertouch has submitted a declaration indicating that high spam loads have caused decreased server response and crashes, led to higher bandwidth utilization, and forced expensive hardware and software upgrades. Given the thousands of spam messages that plaintiff has shown were received by its servers, this is a reasonable statement creating an issue of material fact. Wagner Decl.. Finally, the argument on the alleged lack of spam filtering software on Hypertouch s servers is better characterized as an argument on a failure to mitigate damages, not that there is no adverse affect. KWU also seeks to distinguish Hypertouch from the University of Texas, which was found by the Fifth Circuit to be an ISP through its provision of Internet access and addresses to faculty, staff, and students. See White Buffalo Ventures, LLC v. University of Texas, F.d,, (th Cir. 0). The attempt to differentiate University of Texas from the instant case is not persuasive. KWU asserts that the University of Texas presumably has its own direct Internet connectivity, but the Fifth Circuit decision does not mention anything about the way the University connects to the Internet. Instead, the court noted that the fact that users can access their University accounts from outside of the UT network was irrelevant, and then stated we are hard-pressed to find that providing accounts and access does not bring UT within the statutory definition. University of Texas, F.d at. The Fifth Circuit s decision supports a finding that Hypertouch s provision of accounts and access brings it within the definition of a provider of Internet access service. The Court finds that plaintiff Hypertouch is a provider of Internet access service for purposes of the CAN- SPAM Act. KWU claims that Hypertouch is a professional plaintiff, and has entered the ISP business for the sole purpose of bringing lawsuits under the CAN-SPAM Act. If that is in fact the case, this is a concern that can only be addressed to Congress, as this Court is not in a position to rewrite the statutory definition of Internet access service.
7 Case :0-cv-0-SI Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 0 B. Did KWU Initiate Spam to Hypertouch? KWU contends that there is no evidence that it has initiated the sending of any to Hypertouch. U.S.C. 0 makes it unlawful for any person to initiate the transmission of a commercial with any one of several characteristics, four of which Hypertouch claims apply to the s at issue in this case. Specifically, Hypertouch alleges that the s contained materially false or misleading header information, lacked a valid physical postal address for the sender, were sent to an address harvested by automated means from a website, and were sent to an address generated using automated means. Compl. -. For purposes of the Act, the term initiate is defined as to originate or transmit such a message or to procure the origination or transmission of such message. U.S.C. 0(). In this context, procure means intentionally to pay or provide other consideration to, or induce, another person to initiate such a message on one s behalf with actual knowledge, or by consciously avoiding knowing, whether such person is engaging, or will engage, in a pattern or practice that violates this Act. U.S.C. 0(g)(). Plaintiff s summary judgment opposition brief only discusses KWU s liability in terms of its marketing agencies using unlawful means, and does not assert that KWU directly initiated the spam messages. In addition, James Wagner has indicated that he has no reason to believe that KWU itself sent the s. Pl. Br. at :-, :-:; J. Wagner Exp. Dep. at :-. James Wagner has been deposed in his individual capacity as well as in an expert capacity, and this order makes separate citations to each. Thus, it appears that Hypertouch is asserting KWU s liability under the procure clause, and its contentions will therefore be analyzed under that clause.. Were the s sent on behalf of KWU? In order for KWU to be held liable for procuring the origination or transmission of the messages at issue, those messages must have been sent on behalf of KWU. U.S.C. 0(g)(). KWU contends that there is no evidence that KWU or its agents sent the s in question since the
8 Case :0-cv-0-SI Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 0 plaintiff has not been able to trace them back to KWU, Peak Advertising, Boca Networks, or any other entity. In response, Hypertouch contends that since the s consist of advertisements for KWU s education services and link to KWU web content, the only reasonable interpretation is that they were sent on KWU s behalf; the only alternative explanation is that KWU is the victim of a smear campaign designed to paint it as an spammer. The Court agrees that the very fact that KWU relies heavily on Internet marketing and that the s at issue consist of KWU advertisements is enough to create an issue of material fact on whether they were sent on KWU s behalf.. Did KWU have actual knowledge or consciously avoid knowing of violations of the CAN-SPAM Act? To be held liable under the procure clause of the CAN-SPAM Act, KWU must also have had actual knowledge that its agent would violate the CAN-SPAM Act or must have consciously avoided such knowledge. See U.S.C. 0(g)(). KWU contends that there is no evidence that it had actual knowledge, or consciously avoided knowledge, that any of its marketing agencies engaged in, or would engage in, a violation of the CAN-SPAM Act. To the contrary, KWU argues that the evidence shows that it has promulgated guidelines and practices to ensure that KWU and its agents are in compliance with anti-spam laws, including the retainment of an outside expert on an ongoing basis to vet and monitor marketing agencies hired by KWU. See generally Park Decl. (detailing KWU s guidelines and practices to ensure that its marketing agencies are in compliance with anti-spam laws, including the permanent termination of any agency that it finds to have engaged in a violation). KWU has met its initial burden of demonstrating that there is an absence of evidence to support the element of knowledge that Hypertouch is required to prove under the CAN-SPAM Act. See Celotex Corp., U.S. at. The burden then shifts to Hypertouch to designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. (e)). Hypertouch has failed to provide any evidence that KWU had actual knowledge or consciously avoided knowledge of a current or future violation of the CAN-SPAM Act by anyone who sent the s at issue; its opposition papers
9 Case :0-cv-0-SI Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 0 simply make the conclusory statement that KWU is aware that these third parties use unlawful advertising as a means of increasing the exposure of KWU and the products it sells. Pl. Br. at :-. Hypertouch asserts that KWU s refusal to investigate complaints constitutes ratification through willful ignorance, but fails to provide any evidence of this alleged refusal to investigate. Id. at :-. Indeed, these unsupported statements are contradicted by James Wagner s deposition testimony that he has no evidence that KWU knew that s on its behalf were sent in violation in the CAN-SPAM Act. J. Wagner Dep. at :-:. During oral argument, plaintiff s counsel asserted that the declaration of Shea Park contains evidence that KWU consciously avoided knowledge that its agents were sending out messages that violated the CAN-SPAM Act. This assertion is simply false, as Park s testimony serves only to support the proposition that KWU actively seeks CAN-SPAM Act compliance from the marketing agencies that it hires. See generally Park Decl. (outlining KWU s anti-spam law compliance efforts). As Hypertouch has failed to meet its burden, the Court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to KWU s actual knowledge or conscious avoidance thereof of a violation or future violation of the CAN-SPAM Act by anyone sending commercial on KWU s behalf. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS defendant s motion for summary judgment on the CAN-SPAM Act cause of action. The question of reduction of damages under the CAN-SPAM Act is rendered moot. II. Defendant s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Alleged Violation of California Law Since the federal claims have been eliminated before trial, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the California statutory claim. See Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., F.d, 00 (th Cir. ). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS defendant s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. ). IT IS SO ORDERED.
10 Case :0-cv-0-SI Document Filed 0/0/0 Page 0 of 0 Dated: March, 0 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 0 0
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION PAM HOWARD and EBEN HOWARD ex rel UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFFS v. No. 4:13CV00310 JLH ARKANSAS CHILDREN S HOSPITAL;
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JAMES D. FOWLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No.: 08-cv-2785 ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Judge Robert M. Dow,
Case: 1:10-cv-00117 Document #: 114 Filed: 11/08/10 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1538 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BRIANNA GREENE, on behalf of ) herself and others
2:09-cv-14271-LPZ-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 06/24/10 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 53 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, CASE NO. 09-14271 HON.
Case 1:09-cv-01486-SKG Document 29 Filed 05/18/10 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND TREVA EPPS * V. * CIVIL NO. SKG-09-1486 WAY OF HOPE, INC., ET AL. * MEMORANDUM
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
Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB ERNA GANSER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT
Case :-cv-00-bas-blm Document Filed 0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JORDAN MARKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Plaintiff, CRUNCH
Case 2:04-cv-03428-SRD-ALC Document 29 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA EDWARD McGARRY, ET AL CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 04-3428 TRAVELERS LIFE AND ANNUITY
Case 1:09-cv-21435-MGC Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2011 Page 1 of 6 E. JENNIFER NEWMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 09-21435-Civ-COOKE/TURNOFF vs. Plaintiff
Case 4:13-cv-01104 Document 40 Filed in TXSD on 02/26/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION SHARON JACKSON, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION H-13-1104
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 8:03CV165 Plaintiff, v. WOODMEN OF THE WORLD LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY and/or OMAHA WOODMEN LIFE INSURANCE
Case 1:11-cv-01397-CAP Document 69 Filed 02/27/13 Page 1 of 10 TAMMY DRUMMONDS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 1:11-CV-1397-CAP
SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 22nd day of February, 2013. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WINSTON-SALEM DIVISION In re: Joseph Walter Melara and Shyrell Lynn Melara, Case No.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION REGINA KUHN, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT vs. COMFORT HOSPICE CARE, LLC,
Case 4:14-cv-00283 Document 10 Filed in TXSD on 07/31/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION SELDA SMITH, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-14-283 WELLS FARGO
CASE 0:10-cv-01132-MJD-FLN Document 106 Filed 06/06/11 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re: Mirapex Products Liability Litigation 07-MD-1836 (MJD/FLN) This document relates
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EVELYN THOMAS v. COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF PHILADELPHIA CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-5372 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Kauffman, J. April 18, 2008
Main Document Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE CASE NO. 512-bk-03367-RNO STEVEN RICHARD ALECKNA JAIME SUE ALECKNA CHAPTER 7 Debtors ***********************************
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE PHARMASTEM THERAPEUTICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 02-148 GMS VIACELL INC., CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., CORCELL, INC., STEMCYTE, INC.,
Case 3:12-cv-01004-JPG-PMF Document 123 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #2498 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS HAMILTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT, an Illinois governmental
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, VS. Plaintiff, WILLBROS CONSTRUCTION (U.S.) LLC, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-10-4634 MEMORANDUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 1 PAUL ELKINS and KATHY ELKINS, husband and wife, v. Plaintiffs, QBE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a foreign insurer; COMMUNITYASSOCIATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE GIAN BIOLOGICS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS BIOMET INC. and BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA VISUAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff v. KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC., Defendant CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-1877
2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC
8:09-cv-00341-LSC-FG3 Doc # 276 Filed: 07/19/13 Page 1 of 5 - Page ID # 3979 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA MICHAEL S. ARGENYI, Plaintiff, v. CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY, Defendant.
Case 2:14-cv-02386-MVL-DEK Document 33 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA KIRSTEN D'JUVE CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 14-2386 AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE
The court incorporates by reference in this paragraph and adopts as the findings and orders of this court the document set forth below. This document was signed electronically on November 12, 2008, which
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN PAUL BROEGE, and THE ESTATE OF STEVEN J. BROEGE, BY PHYLLIS A. BROEGE, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, Wisconsin Residents, Plaintiffs,
Case 4:05-cv-00008-JAJ-RAW Document 80 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION EARL A. POWELL, In the name of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case 0:05-cv-02409-DSD-RLE Document 51 Filed 03/16/2006 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil No. 05-2409(DSD/RLE) Kristine Forbes (Lamke) and Morgan Koop, Plaintiffs, v.
Case: 1:06-cv-06591 Document #: 106 Filed: 01/15/08 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION T. McGANN PLUMBING, INC., Plaintiff,
Case 0:14-cv-62840-JIC Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2015 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, KELLEY VENTURES, LLC, KEVIN P. KELLEY, and PHOENIX MOTORS, INC.,
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE : CHAPTER 7 AMERICAN REHAB & PHYSICAL : THERAPY, INC. : DEBTOR : CASE NO. 04-14562 ROBERT H. HOLBER, TRUSTEE : PLAINTIFF
Case 2:08-cv-03323-BMS Document 17 Filed 08/04/09 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PATRICIA MAYER, : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : CARLOS MASCAREHAS,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. No. 96-CV-4598 PATRICIA M. CURRY KELLY, et al., Defendants.
Case: 15-10192 Document: 00513409349 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. DARILYN JOHNSON, v. Plaintiff Appellant,
5:05-cv-60218-JCO-MAR Doc # 277 Filed 01/03/08 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 3230 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ROOFERS LOCAL 149 SECURITY BENEFIT TRUST FUND, et al., Plaintiffs,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION EEOC versus BROWN & GROUP RETAIL, INC. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-06-3074 Memorandum and Order Regarding Discovery Motions,
Case 14-50028 Doc 30 Filed 03/16/15 EOD 03/16/15 15:59:28 Pg 1 of 8 SO ORDERED: March 16, 2015. Jeffrey J. Graham United States Bankruptcy Judge UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
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.
Case 4:06-cv-00191 Document 12 Filed in TXSD on 05/25/06 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION BARBARA S. QUINN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-06-00191
Case 2:15-cv-00420-DB Document 2 Filed 06/12/15 Page 1 of 10 Evan A. Schmutz (3860) firstname.lastname@example.org Jordan K. Cameron (12051) email@example.com DURHAM JONES & PINEGAR, P.C. 3301 N Thanksgiving Way,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ERIN T. WASHICHECK, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER v. 05-C-302-S THE ULTIMATE LTD. and THE ULTIMATE LTD. HEALTH PLAN, Defendants.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION ) CHARLES HONEYCUTT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) NO. 02-2710 Ml/V ) FIRST FEDERAL BANK, a FSB d/b/a ) First Federal
Case 2:04-cv-02667-EEF-JCW Document 37 Filed 04/26/06 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CLYDE CHAMBERS VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-2667 SECTION T JOSHUA MARINE, INC.
2:07-cv-12361-JF-DAS Doc # 18 Filed 03/19/08 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 159 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION STACEY MACK, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. 07-12361 Hon. John Feikens
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JOAN FALLOWS KLUGE, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. L-10-00022 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Joan Fallows
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN In re: MARY KAY TRESEDDER, f/k/a MARY KAY ANDERSON, Case No. DM 10-90420 Hon. Scott W. Dales Debtor. / MARY KAY TRESEDDER, v. Plaintiff,
Case 3:12-cv-01348-HZ Document 32 Filed 03/08/13 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#: 144 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION KELLY J. YOX, an individual, v. Plaintiff, No.
Case 08-00058-8-JRL Doc 40 Filed 05/20/09 Entered 05/20/09 14:28:43 Page 1 of 6 SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 20 day of May, 2009. J. Rich Leonard United States Bankruptcy Judge IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY
Walker v. Transworld Systems, Inc. Doc. 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION NEVADA WALKER, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 8:14-cv-588-T-30MAP TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant.
Case: 1:10-cv-08146 Document #: 27 Filed: 06/29/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:342 TKK USA INC., f/k/a The Thermos Company, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff,
Case :0-cv-0-FDB Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 LOREN A. DEAN, v. Plaintiff, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA INTRODUCTION Case
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,
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 96-11134 Summary Calendar. Rosser B. MELTON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEACHERS INSURANCE & ANNUITY ASSOCIATION of AMERICA, Defendant- Appellee, United
Case 5:13-cv-01237-D Document 49 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA MART D. GREEN, Trustee of the David and Barbara Green 1993 Dynasty Trust,
Case: 1:10-cv-02697 Document #: 65 Filed: 08/16/11 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:659 10-2697.111-RSK August 16, 2011 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ROSLYN
Case 4:14-cv-01527 Document 39 Filed in TXSD on 07/08/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CHARTIS SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA RONALD DUTTON, : : Consolidated Under Plaintiff, : MDL DOCKET NO. 875 : v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. : 09-62916 TODD SHIPYARDS CORP.,
Case 2:12-cv-02071-SSV-JCW Document 283 Filed 02/26/15 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 12-2071 BOLLINGER SHIPYARDS,
Case 2:08-cv-02427-EFM Document 44 Filed 12/14/09 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS MAX SEIFERT, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 08-2427-EFM KANSAS CITY, KANSAS COMMUNITY
Case 5:03-cv-00175-DF Document 40 Filed 05/16/05 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION LINDA DENT, : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : 5:03CV175 (DF) :
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit May 15, 2008 Barbara A. Schermerhorn Clerk IN RE CHRISTOPHER
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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE CIVIL ACTION INSURANCE COMPANY, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO NORTH AMERICAN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY NO. 96-4053
Case 5:04-cv-00084-GFVT Document 975 Filed 04/18/2007 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LEXINGTON DIVISION STATIC CONTROL COMPONENTS, INC., ET AL. V. Plaintiffs, LEXMARK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 94-11035 (Summary Calendar) GLEN R. GURLEY and JEAN E. GURLEY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal
Case 1:14-cv-01989-ELH Document 39 Filed 05/15/15 Page 1 of 5 United States District Court District Of Maryland Chambers of Ellen Lipton Hollander District Court Judge 101 West Lombard Street Baltimore,
Case 1:08-cv-00284-CB-M Document 29 Filed 06/15/09 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMSON, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) CIVIL
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND CATHERINE HOWELL, et al. Plaintiffs v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES, et al. Defendants Civil No. L-04-1494 MEMORANDUM This is a proposed
Case 7:12-cv-00148-HL Document 43 Filed 11/07/13 Page 1 of 11 CHRISTY LYNN WATFORD, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No.
Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Appellate Division In the Case of: The Physicians Hospital in Anadarko, Petitioner, - v. - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. DATE:
Case 5:10-cv-00044-CAR Document 280 Filed 11/18/11 Page 1 of 14 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION TERRY CARTRETTE TINDALL, : : Plaintiff, : v. : Civil Action
CASE 0:08-cv-01383-JNE-FLN Document 128 Filed 03/03/10 Page 1 of 7 Marquette Business Credit, Inc., Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA v. Civil No. 08-1383 (JNE/FLN) ORDER International
Case 2:10-cv-10078-NGE-MAR Document 16 Filed 10/13/10 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Keith Hartop, v. Plaintiff, Case No. 10-10078 Honorable Nancy
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-8-2014 In Re: Asbestos Products Liability Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 13-4002 Follow
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CV. 05-1782-AS ex rel. JACK SUTTON and DEE SUTTON, OPINION AND ORDER v. THOMAS E. REYNOLDS, Plaintiffs, Defendant.