1 Case 4:03-cv Y Document 197 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1822 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION GOD'S CHARIOT, L.P. VS. ACTION NO. 4:03-CV-624-Y CITY OF EULESS ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES After successfully defending against all claims levied against it by plaintiff, God's Chariot, L.P., defendant, City of Euless, filed the instant motion (doc. #191) requesting an award of $149, as a "fair and reasonable amount of attorney's fees" under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3613(c)(2). Alternatively, Defendant seeks an award of $51,562, "which is the amount of attorney's fees reasonably incurred since the date Plaintiff's current counsel substituted into the case." After careful review of the pleadings and the evidence submitted regarding Defendant's request for attorney's fees, and for the reasons stated below, the Court concludes that Defendant is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in the amount of $55, I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff God's Chariot, L.P. ("God's Chariot") owned a thirtysix unit apartment complex called Dickey Apartments on a plot of land ("the Property") located within the city limits of defendant City of Euless ("Euless"), Texas. God's Chariot acquired the Property on October 1, But Euless had annexed the Property on December
2 Case 4:03-cv Y Document 197 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 10 PageID , 1971, and since its annexation the Property had been zoned as single-family property. Because the apartments were not single-family dwellings, the Property was characterized as "nonconforming use" and the apartments were characterized as "nonconforming structures." In December 1998 and August 2000, Euless adopted ordinances ("the ordinances") allowing the city to discontinue nonconforming uses of land and structures. The ordinances allow, however, an owner to continue his nonconforming usage over a sufficient number of years to recoup his investment. This procedure is called "amortization" by the parties. Euless's amortization protocol allows Euless's city council to direct the termination of a nonconforming use through a minute order. Euless's zoning board then determines the date for termination by calculating the time necessary for the property owner to recover its capital investment, beginning with the date the use became nonconforming. The Euless city council directed by minute order the demolition of Dickey Apartments. After conducting a hearing and receiving evidence regarding the Property's appraised value, fair-market value, and repair costs, the zoning board set June 30, 2003, as the termination date for the apartments. That is, Dickey Apartments had to be removed from the Property by June 30. God's Chariot received notice of the termination date on April 11, God's Chariot filed suit against Euless on June 24, 2003, alleging: (1) claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, for Euless's regulatory taking of the Property, due process violations under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 2
3 Case 4:03-cv Y Document 197 Filed 12/14/06 Page 3 of 10 PageID 1824 I, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution, and deprivation of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) violations of Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Texas Constitution (the ex post facto clauses); (3) violations of the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. 3601, et seq; and, (4) estoppel. The focus of God's Chariot's complaint, however, is the city ordinances and the city council's decision directing the demolition of Dickey Apartments. On August 24, 2005, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of Euless regarding God's Chariot's section 1983 claims, concluding those claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant did not file a motion for attorney's fees under section The remainder of God's Chariot's claims proceeded to trial. But after resting its case, the Court directed God's Chariot to file a response to Euless's motion for judgment as a matter of law under FED.R.CIV.P. 50(a). In particular, the Court directed God's Chariot's response to, among other things, discuss the application of the statute of limitations to its FHA claims and to provide relevant precedent, and to address why judgment should not be entered in favor of Euless for the reasons stated in Euless's motion regarding God's Chariot's claim for individualized-injury under the FHA. After considering Euless's motion and God's Chariot's response, the Court found Euless's motion "well-taken" and concluded that God's Chariot's "claims under the [FHA]... should be dismissed with prejudice." In the end, none of God's Chariot's claims ever made it to the jury for deliberation. After the Court entered its final judgment dismissing all claims 3
4 Case 4:03-cv Y Document 197 Filed 12/14/06 Page 4 of 10 PageID 1825 in this case with prejudice, Euless filed the instant motion for an award of attorney's fees under section 3613(c)(2) of the FHA. Euless has not asked, nor has it ever asked, for an award of attorney's fees under section 1988 for its successful defense against God's Chariot's section 1983 claims. II. ANALYSIS As a starting point, the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the "American Rule" holding that each party in a lawsuit ordinarily shall bear its own attorney's fees "the prevailing party is not entitled to collect from the loser." Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc., et al. v. West Virginia Dep't of Health & Human Res., et al., 532 U.S. 598, 602 (2001); Hensley, et al. v. Eckerhart, et al., 461 U.S. 424, 429 (1983); Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 247 (1975). Under this practice, a court will not award attorney's fees to a prevailing party "absent explicit statutory authority." Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 602. Section 3613(c)(2) of the FHA provides that "the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee and costs." Although the language in the statute seems rather straightforward, a prevailing defendant is not entitled to attorney's fees unless a plaintiff's claim under the FHA was frivolous, unreasonable, groundless, or vexatious. See Christiansburg Garment Co., v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978); Hensley, 461 U.S. at 429 n.2; Claiborne v. Wisdom, 414 F.3d 715, (7th Cir. 2005). 4
5 Case 4:03-cv Y Document 197 Filed 12/14/06 Page 5 of 10 PageID 1826 In Christiansburg, the Supreme Court interpreted a nearly identical fee-shifting section in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k), to mean that "a plaintiff should not be assessed his opponent's attorney's fees unless a court finds that his claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so." 1 Christiansburg, 434 U.S. at 422. The Supreme Court recognized this same standard in Hensley regarding another similarly written fee-shifting statute for actions brought under 42 U.S.C See 42 U.S.C ; Hensley, 461 U.S. at 429 n.2. Because the fee-shifting provision in section 3613(c)(2) is identical in all material aspects to the provisions in sections 2000e-5(k) and 1988, and because Congress added this section to the FHA after the Supreme Court decisions in Christiansburg and Hensley 3, the Court concludes that a prevailing defendant in a FHA claim cannot recover reasonable attorney's fees unless the defendant establishes that the plaintiff's FHA claim was frivolous, unreasonable, groundless, or vexatious. The Court notes that both parties agree that this is the applicable standard to determine whether a prevailing defendant is entitled to attorney's fees under the FHA though they disagree as to its application in this case. 1 Specifically, section 2000e-5(k) provides that "the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the Commission or the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee (including expert fees) as part of costs...." 2 Specifically, section 1988 provides that "the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs...." 3 See P.L ; 102 Stat
6 Case 4:03-cv Y Document 197 Filed 12/14/06 Page 6 of 10 PageID 1827 In applying this standard, the Supreme Court has stated that "it is important that a district court resist the understandable temptation to engage in post hoc reasoning by concluding that, because a plaintiff did not ultimately prevail, his action must have been unreasonable or without foundation." Christiansburg, 434 U.S. at The High Court explained that "frivolous" or "groundless" should be understood as meaning the claim is without foundation, and that vexatious "in no way implies that the plaintiff's subjective bad-faith is a necessary prerequisite...." Id. at 421. In determining whether a suit was frivolous, a district court should look to such factors as: did the plaintiff establish a prima facie case, did the defendant offer to settle, and did the court dismiss the case or hold a full trial? Walker v. City of Bogalusa, 168 F.3d 237, 240 (5th Cir. 1999). Applying these standards to the case at bar, the Court concludes that God's Chariot's claims under the FHA were groundless. But first, the Court notes that Euless has not now, nor has it ever, requested attorney's fees for God's Chariot's section 1983 claims under 42 U.S.C Thus, the Court's determination of a reasonable attorney's fee will discount any effort in defending against those claims. Additionally, the Court rejects Euless's request for an award of attorney's fees "under equitable grounds." Recognizing that the Court does possess the inherent authority to assess attorney's fees, the use of that authority is for "narrowly defined circumstances" none of which apply to this case or to the conduct of God's Chariot's prosecution of its claims. See Chambers 6
7 Case 4:03-cv Y Document 197 Filed 12/14/06 Page 7 of 10 PageID 1828 v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, (1991). Turning now to God's Chariot's FHA claims, the record shows that those claims were dismissed before even reaching a jury. "While that alone is insufficient to support a finding of frivolity," Meyers v. City of West Monroe, 211 F.3d 289, 293 (5th Cir. 2000), based on the Court's determination that Euless was entitled to judgment as a matter of law after God's Chariot had the opportunity to present its whole case, the Court concludes that its FHA claims were groundless. God's Chariot was unable to present any evidence and any legal authority to rebut Euless's arguments establishing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Discovery in this case ended on November 29, 2004 approximately one year before the parties engaged in mediation and more than a year and a half before the case was called for trial on June 5, By the time the parties attempted to mediate the claims, God's Chariot was certainly fully aware of the evidence it had in support of its FHA claims. And the arguments put forward in Euless's motion for judgment as a matter of law were the same as it put forward in its answer to God's Chariot's complaint, filed on July 14, 2003, and in its trial brief, filed on May 30, Yet, God's Chariot persisted in prosecuting its FHA claims until they were dismissed under FED.R.CIV.P. 50(a), willfully ignoring that it lacked any "legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find" in its favor. See FED.R.CIV.P. 50(a). Thus, there is no basis from which this Court can say that God's Chariot's FHA claims weren't groundless. The record clearly shows that God's Chariot was fully aware that it could not attain a favorable finding 7
8 Case 4:03-cv Y Document 197 Filed 12/14/06 Page 8 of 10 PageID 1829 on those claims under the controlling law and insisted on proceeding to trial nonetheless. Id.; compare with Meyer, 211 F.3d at 293 (finding claims that were dismissed before they reached a jury frivolous when plaintiff could offer no evidence at trial to substantiate them). After review of Euless's motion for reasonable attorney's fees and the supporting evidence attached to that motion, the Court concludes that $55, is an appropriate amount of attorney's fees for its defense against the FHA claims. The Court has considered the fact that God's Chariot sued on multiple claims and, since Euless is only entitled to reasonable attorney's fees for its efforts in defending against a portion of those claims, Euless's initial requested amount of $149,199.75, which represents the fees generated for defending the entire case, is inappropriate. "There is no precise formula for making these determinations." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436. But in coming to this determination, the Court notes that Euless requested $51,562 as an alternative amount. Euless computed that amount as "fees reasonably incurred since the date [God's Chariot's] current counsel substituted into the case." While Euless does not explain why that date is relevant in determining its reasonable and appropriate attorney's fees, the Court does note that God's Chariot's current counsel substituted into the case on February 22, Prior to that, on August 24, 2005, the Court partially granted Euless's summary-judgment motion dismissing God's Chariot's section 1983 claims but leaving its FHA claims, as well as others, intact. But between the Court's partial grant of Euless's 8
9 Case 4:03-cv Y Document 197 Filed 12/14/06 Page 9 of 10 PageID 1830 summary-judgment motion and God's Chariot's substitution of new counsel, the parties engaged in mediation on the remaining claims, including the FHA claims, before Magistrate Judge Charles Bleil. And the Court concludes that Euless is entitled to attorney's fees generated in preparing for and participating in that mediation. See Walker, 168 F.3d at 240 (stating a court should consider whether a defendant offered to settle). A review of Euless's evidence shows that its attorneys generated $ in fees while preparing for and participating in that mediation. The Court also notes that the billing records do not contain any redundancies or "double billing" even though there was more than one attorney working on Euless's case. And although surely Euless's attorneys spent that time also preparing for claims besides the FHA claims that survived its summary-judgment motion, the Court recognizes that there is no certain method for precisely calculating the time spent, minute by minute, on each particular claim especially when, as here, all of the claims arise from a common nucleus of facts. The docket in this case indicates that no other significant event occurred between the date the Court issued its order on Euless's summary-judgment motion and the date God's Chariot's new counsel appeared in the case. III. CONCLUSION Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that Euless is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under the FHA, 42 U.S.C. 3613(c)(2), because God's Chariot's FHA claims were TRM/flg 9
10 Case 4:03-cv Y Document 197 Filed 12/14/06 Page 10 of 10 PageID 1831 groundless. Further, the Court concludes, for the reasons above, that $55, represents a reasonable amount of attorney's fees generated defending against God's Chariot's FHA claims. Accordingly, Euless is GRANTED JUDGMENT in the sum of $55, against God's Chariot for its reasonable attorney's fees. Postjudgment interest shall accrue on the judgment and cost awarded at a rate of 4.90% from the date this judgment is entered on the docket until paid. See 28 U.S.C SIGNED December 14, TRM/flg 10
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
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: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JAMES MEYER, v. Plaintiff, DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS
Case 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,
Case 6:12-cv-00914-RBD-TBS Document 136 Filed 07/16/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID 4525 TROVILLION CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, INC.; and CASA JARDIN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE
Case 5:06-cv-00503-XR Document 20 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, VS. Plaintiff, HENRY D. GOLTZ, EVANGELINA
Case 3:06-cv-01134-P Document 13 Filed 08/14/06 Page 1 of 5 PageID 59 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION WILLIAM HAROLD GIDNEY, JR., ) Plaintiff, ) )
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
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
ATTORNEY S FEES IN ACTIONS AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITIES: Strategies to Reduce or Defeat Plaintiffs Fee Claims and Potentially Recover Your Own Fees PUBLIC AGENCY RISK MANAGERS ASSOCIATION February 2016 Daniel
Case 3:13-cv-01004-P-BN Document 10 Filed 03/15/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID 78 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION YVONNE BROWN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, V. No. 3:13-cv-1004-P-BN
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
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued October 29, 2014 Decided February
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
Case 1:14-cv-00873-JLK Document 60 Filed 07/20/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No.: 1:14-cv-00873-JLK DEBORAH CARTER, v. Plaintiff,
Case 3:07-cv-00952-L Document 26 Filed 03/13/08 Page 1 of 6 PageID 979 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION RAFFAELE M. PANDOZY, Ph.D., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action
FEE SHIFTING IN PATENT LITIGATION Sughrue Mion, PLLC Abraham J. Rosner May 2014 I. BACKGROUND In the U.S., each party to litigation ordinarily pays its own attorney fees regardless of the outcome (called
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.
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
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-13-00125-CV CHRISTOPHER EDOMWANDE APPELLANT V. JULIO GAZA & SANDRA F. GAZA APPELLEES ---------- FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY
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
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
Case 4:14-cv-00502-O Document 13 Filed 01/28/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID 92 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION TRAVIS BLANK, (BOP No. 16486-078) V. CIVIL
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-cv-0-MCE-KJM Document Filed 0//0 Page of L ONGYEAR, O DEA American River Drive, Suite 0 Sacramento, California - Tel: --00 Fax: - John A. Lavra, CSB No. Jeri L. Pappone, CSB No. Attorneys for Defendants,
Case 2:06-cv-02631-SMM Document 17 Filed 04/13/07 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA JAMES BRETT MARCHANT, Plaintiff, 2:06-cv-02631 PHX JWS vs. ORDER AND OPINION [Re: Motion at
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
Case 3:13-cv-00869-L Document 22 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID 220 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ADONIS ROBINSON AND TAMESHA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs,
Wojciechowski v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P. Doc. 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION SARINA L. WOJCIECHOWSKI, Plaintiff, VS. NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO, L.P.,
Case 3:11-cv-01234-MMH-MCR Document 25 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID 145 NORTH AMERICAN COMPANY FOR LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
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.
33 U.S.C. 3729-33 FALSE CLAIMS ACT STATUTORY LANGUAGE 31 U.S.C. 3729. False claims (a) LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN ACTS. (1) IN GENERAL. Subject to paragraph (2), any person who (A) knowingly presents, or causes
Case: 10-10823 Date Filed: 10/13/2010 Page: 1 of 7 [PUBLISH] CARLOS SHURICK, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 10-10823 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 6:07-cv-01974-GAP-GJK
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
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 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.
Opinion issued April 19, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-15-00361-CV FREDDIE L. WALKER, Appellant V. RISSIE OWENS, PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND
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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, vs. No. CIV 97-362 RLP/DJS HORIZON/CMS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Defendant. FINDINGS
Case: 1:12-cv-00629-SJD-KLL Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/28/12 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 108 JAVIER LUIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:12-cv-500-T-33AEP
Case 0:11-cv-62570-RSR Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2014 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION Case No.: 11-62570-CIV-ROSENBAUM/HUNT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. MARK TROXLER, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 28, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION BARBARA DICKERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. 4:03 CV 341 DDN DEACONESS LONG TERM CARE OF MISSOURI, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM
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
Case 6:11-cv-00421-TBD-JDL Document 364 Filed 08/06/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 9004 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION Stragent, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 6:11-cv-421
articles - case law - resources - events - appellate highlights - announcements Reporter summer 2015 issue Jones, Skelton & Hochuli THE DIFFERENT WARRANTIES COVERING A CONTRACTOR S WORK PAGE07 & DEMANDING
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
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 Plaintiffs: JON C. COOK, an individual, and THE LUMBERYARDS DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., a Colorado Limited Liability Company,
Case 3:06-cv-02069-P Document 10 Filed 12/20/06 Page 1 of 5 PageID 33 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ANTHONY JACKSON, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 3:06-CV-2069-B
Case 5:14-cv-00141-XR Document 37 Filed 08/13/14 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION TAMMY FABIAN, v. Plaintiffs, CAROLYN COLVIN, Commissioner
Case 4:09-cv-00575 Document 37 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/10 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION AMERICAN SURGICAL ASSISTANTS, INC., VS. Plaintiff, CIGNA HEALTHCARE
Case 1:04-cv-03085-NGG-KAM Document 11 Filed 08/15/05 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 46 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 114-cv-03113-BMC Document 17 Filed 09/02/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID # 79 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------- X WILIAN ENCALADA,
Slip Copy, 2009 WL 3048451 (M.D.Fla.) (Cite as: 2009 WL 3048451 (M.D.Fla.)) Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division. Tara OLESEN-FRAYNE,
SMALL CLAIMS RULES Rule 501. Scope and Purpose (a) How Known and Cited. These rules for the small claims division for the county court are additions to C.R.C.P. and shall be known and cited as the Colorado
What Trustees Should Know About Florida s New Attorneys Fee Statute By David P. Hathaway and David J. Akins Introduction More and more lawsuits are filed in Florida alleging that the trustee of a trust
Office of the Comptroller v. Colonial Roofing Company, Inc. OATH Index No. 632/13, mem. dec. (Feb. 19, 2013) In prevailing wage case, contractor sought summary judgment dismissing petition due to delay
Case: 13-3297 Document: 003111509247 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2014 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 13-3297 THOMAS I. GAGE, Appellant v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS; MR. LUKE ANDERSEN;
[Doc. No. 91] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Plaintiff, Civil No. 04-1512 (RBK) v. EQUITY FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC,
2:12-cv-12284-GCS-MKM Doc # 42 Filed 02/26/13 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 687 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MARY C. VANDENHEEDE, vs. Plaintiff, FRANK B. VECCHIO, individually
2015 IL App (1st) 141310-U FIRST DIVISION October 5, 2015 No. 1-14-1310 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to present law. State of Arkansas 90th General Assembly A Bill Regular Session, 2015 SENATE BILL 830 By: Senator D. Sanders
Case 2:09-cv-07349-AJM-KWR Document 19 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA FIRST FINANCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY * CIVIL ACTION VERSUS * NO: 09-7349 JOSE ARRIAGA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. JEREMY JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 2:11-CR-501 DN Chief District
Case 3:02-cv-02186-B Document 348 Filed 07/16/08 Page 1 of 11 PageID 4981 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC., Plaintiff, V. CIVIL ACTION NO.
2011 WL 529511 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Central Division. Ramona Denise WILHOITE, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA In Re JUNG BEA HAN and Case No. 00-42086 HYUNG SOOK HAN, Debtors. JUNG BEA HAN, Plaintiff. v. Adv. No. 05-03012 GE CAPITAL SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE
Case 1:07-cv-00514-GJQ Document 58 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION WALTER E. HARRIS v. Plaintiff, Case No. 1:07-CV-514 HON.
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.
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.
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
Case 0:07-cv-60771-JIC Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/07 09:36:18 Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MRI SCAN CENTER, INC., on itself and all others similarly situated,
Case 3:13-cv-01825-ST Document 48 Filed 04/22/14 Page 1 of 9 Page ID#: 1126 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION F. ANTONE ACCUARDI, v. Plaintiff, BRAD FREDERICKS, Case No.
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,
GAVIN'S ACE HARDWARE, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION Plaintiff, -vs- Case No. 2:11-cv-162-FtM-36SPC FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ORDER
FULMORE v. M & M TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC. Doc. 112 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION CARL S. FULMORE, Plaintiff, v. M & M TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., Defendant.
Case 1:13-cv-00166-SOM-RLP Document 56 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 468 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII GALINA OGEONE, vs. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.