1 Case :0-cv-0-CW Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 0 0 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; and GREENPEACE, INC., v. Plaintiffs, DIRK KEMPTHORNE, United States Secretary of the Interior; and UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, Defendants. / No. C 0- CW ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendants to perform their mandatory duty under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) timely to publish a final listing determination for the polar bear. Plaintiffs have filed a summary judgment motion seeking an injunction and declaratory judgment. Defendants oppose this motion. The Court has considered all of the papers filed by the parties. Because timeliness is essential, the issues are not complex and the parties are generally in agreement, the Court decides this motion without oral argument. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion. BACKGROUND On February, 00, Defendants received from Plaintiff
2 Case :0-cv-0-CW Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) a petition to list the polar bear as an endangered species under the ESA. On June, 00, the federal district court granted the parties stipulated settlement agreement. On January, 00, pursuant to that agreement, Defendants published in the Federal Register a proposed rule to list the polar bear as a threatened species. Following publication, the public comment period was open for three months and public hearings were held in Alaska and Washington, D.C. (Laverty Decl..) In September, 00, at Defendants request, the United State Geological Survey (USGS) 0 completed reports pertaining to polar bear habitat, polar bear population numbers, and data on arctic climate and sea ice trends. (Id..) To allow public comment on the reports, Defendants then reopened the comment period until October, 00. (Id..) On December, 00, Defendant FWS s Alaska Regional Office The ESA provides a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, and a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species. U.S.C. (b). The proposed rule explained that polar bears, or Ursus maritimus, are the largest of the living bear species, and are evolutionarily adapted to life on sea ice. Fed. Reg. 0, 0 (Jan., 00). Polar bears are distributed throughout the circumpolar Arctic, including areas of Alaska, and rely on sea ice as their primary habitat for feeding, breeding and denning. Id. at 0. Defendants determined that the polar bear population could be grouped into nineteen distinct population segments, but that the entire species meets the definition of a threatened species under the Act. Id. at 0. An endangered species is any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, whereas a threatened species is any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. U.S.C. (), (0).
3 Case :0-cv-0-CW Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 forwarded a draft final report to its Washington, D.C. office. (Id..) On January, 00, Defendants publicly announced that the final listing would occur in thirty days. (Id..) On February, 00, Defendants prepared a new draft final listing, including input from a working group of staff from the Office of the Solicitor. (Id. -0.) On April, 00, Defendants asked the Solicitor to ensure that the listing determination met all statutory and regulatory guidelines. (Id..) Plaintiffs action arises from Defendants failure to issue a final listing determination and critical habitat designation by January, 00--within one year of publication of the proposed rule--as required by U.S.C. (b)(). On January, 00, Plaintiffs sent Defendants a sixty-day notice of intent to sue, pursuant to the ESA. On March 0, 00, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. On April, 00, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. On April, 00, Defendants filed an opposition. 0 LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment is properly granted when no genuine and disputed issues of material fact remain, and when, viewing the evidence most favorably to the non-moving party, the movant is clearly entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. ; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, U.S., - (). The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no material On April, 00, Applicant Conservation Force also filed a motion to intervene. Plaintiffs oppose this motion.
4 Case :0-cv-0-CW Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 factual dispute. Therefore, the court must regard as true the opposing party s evidence, if supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material. Id. at. The court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., U.S., (); Intel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., F.d, (th Cir. ). Material facts which would preclude entry of summary judgment are those which, under applicable substantive law, may affect the outcome of the case. The substantive law will identify which facts are material. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., U.S., (). DISCUSSION All parties agree that summary judgment is appropriate. However, they disagree regarding the date on which the rule should be ordered published in the Federal Register, and on whether the rule should be effective immediately upon publication or after a thirty-day notice period. I. Summary Judgment 0 Both Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that Defendants were required to issue a decision by January, 00, but that they failed to do so. Section Four of the ESA sets out the process for listing a threatened or endangered species. It provides that, after publication of a notice and proposed rule in the Federal Register, the Secretary of the Interior must act on the rule within one year of the date of its publication by promulgating a final rule, withdrawing the proposed rule, or extending the one-year time
5 Case :0-cv-0-CW Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 period for not more than six months. U.S.C. (b)(). This is a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty which may be enforced by citizen suit. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Babbitt, F.d, (th Cir. ). The parties agree that Defendants missed this nondiscretionary deadline. Therefore, because there is no dispute of material fact, Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. II. Issuance of an Injunction The parties also agree that the Court is required to issue an 0 injunction. However, they diverge in their requests for when the injunction should take effect. In recognition that timeliness in the listing process is essential, Congress developed mandatory deadlines for listing endangered and threatened species under the ESA. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Norton, F.d, (th Cir. 00). The language of the ESA regarding the deadlines for action could hardly be more clear. Or. Natural Res. Council, Inc. v. Kantor, F.d, - (th Cir. ). Therefore, traditional 0 preliminary injunction analysis does not apply to injunctions issued pursuant to the ESA. Nat l Wildlife Fed n v. Nat l Marine Fisheries Serv., F.d, - (th Cir. 00). Once a suit is brought against the Secretary for violating a non-discretionary deadline under the ESA, a district court must issue an injunction. Biodiversity Legal Found. v. Badgley, 0 F.d, (th Cir. 00) (citing TVA v. Hill, U.S., - ()). Plaintiffs request that the Court order Defendants to publish a final listing determination for the polar bear by May, 00.
6 Case :0-cv-0-CW Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 Plaintiffs cite Marbled Murrelet v. Lujan, U.S. Dist. LEXIS (W.D. Wash.), in which a district court judge ordered a species listing rule published three days after the order was issued. In Marbled Murrelet, the court found that the Secretary of the Interior had unlawfully delayed the listing of a species under the ESA by filing an insufficient notice of six-month extension. The instant case does not pertain to a notice of extension. However, the court s decision to order the listing promptly was based, in part, on the fact that the FWS field office had already drafted a final rule. Here, too, Defendants had a final rule, produced by the FWS field office, in December, 00, and a second final draft, in February, 00. The Ninth Circuit decision in Environmental Defense Center v. Babbitt, F.d (th Cir. ), and the cases that have followed it, indicate that the time frame for issuing an injunction should be based on a standard of reasonableness. See, e.g., Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Norton, 0 F. Supp. d, (D. Ariz. 00) ( In setting a timetable for agency action, the Ninth 0 Circuit has instructed courts to follow a standard of reasonableness. ). A judge in this district determined that the ESA does not divest the Court of its equitable discretion to fashion a reasonable remedy. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Norton, 0 F. Supp. d 0, 00- (N.D. Cal. 00). In Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, F.d (0th Cir. ), the Tenth In order to extend the one-year listing deadline, the Secretary must establish the existence of substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relevant to the determination. U.S.C. (b)()(b)(i).
7 Case :0-cv-0-CW Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 Circuit directed district courts to refer to Environmental Defense Center as guidance for determining deadlines for compliance with the ESA. The court clarified that such orders must consider what work is necessary to publish the final rule and how quickly that can be accomplished. Id. at. Defendants request that they have until June 0, 00 to publish the final listing determination for the polar bear. They argue that, given the legal and factual complexity of the rule, the number and variety of public comments that they received, and the amount of internal review required, this is a reasonable schedule. By December, 00, Defendant FWS s Alaska Regional Office had prepared a draft final report. On January, 00, Defendants were put on notice that they were in violation of the law and that Plaintiffs would be filing suit. However, Defendants did not file a notice in the Federal Register seeking an extension of time. Instead, Defendants publicly announced that the rule would be published by February, 00. On February, 00 Defendants completed a final draft that incorporated the results of internal 0 review and comments from the Solicitor s office. On March 0, 00, Defendants received notice that Plaintiff CBD had filed the instant action, including a request for an injunction to take effect on approximately May, 00. Defendants have been in violation of the law requiring them to publish the listing determination for nearly 0 days. Other than the general complexity of finalizing the rule, Defendants offer no specific facts that would justify the existing delay, much less further delay. To allow Defendants more time would violate the mandated
8 Case :0-cv-0-CW Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 listing deadlines under the ESA and congressional intent that time is of the essence in listing threatened species. Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs request for an injunction, and orders Defendants to publish the final listing determination for the polar bear on or before May, 00. III. Thirty-Day Notice Period Plaintiffs also request that the Court order Defendants to effectuate the rule immediately upon publication in the Federal Register, rather than allowing the thirty-day notice period required under the Administrative Procedures Act. The Act specifies that publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 0 days before its effective date. U.S.C. (d). However, this thirty-day delay can be abrogated if otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule. U.S.C. (d)(). Defendants argue that the thirty-day waiting period is necessary to permit any affected entities to become familiar with the substance of the final rule and adjust their behavior 0 accordingly. Riverbend Farms, Inc. v. Madigan, F.d, (th Cir. ). Regarding the polar bear, affected parties have been on notice since January, 00 that a final determination on the proposed rule would be published within one year. During that year, parties were given two opportunities to submit comments. On January, 00, Defendants publicly announced that the listing The Federal Register is the official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of federal agencies. It is updated daily by :00 am and is published Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
9 Case :0-cv-0-CW Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 determination would be published no later than February, 00. Thus, when the final determination is published between now and May, 00, affected parties will have had adequate notice that publication was forthcoming. Further, Defendants have waived the notice period on several occasions, in order to effectuate an ESA listing immediately. See, e.g., Fed. Reg., (March, ) ( Because of the immediate threat posed by [existing and pending development projects], the Service finds that good cause exists for this rule to take effect immediately upon publication in accordance with U.S.C. (d)(). ). Defendants contend that the thirty-day waiting period does not pose a threat and will have a negligible effect on the status of the polar bear, because the species is already protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The MMPA, like the ESA, prohibits any killing, including incidental take, unless exempted or authorized under the statute. (Laverty Decl..) However, the protections afforded under the ESA far surpass those provided by the MMPA, because the ESA also protects species habitat. 0 Also, under the ESA, all federal agencies are required to confer with the Secretary of the Interior prior to authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action that might destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat, or otherwise jeopardize the existence, of a species listed under the ESA. U.S.C. (a). Plaintiffs point out a specific agency action -a proposed rule that would exempt oil industry operations in the Chukchi Sea from the MMPA The ESA, unlike the MMPA, also allows citizens to bring suit, such as the instant action, in order to enforce the statute.
10 Case :0-cv-0-CW Document Filed 0//00 Page 0 of 0 0 prohibitions against the incidental take of polar bears--that could jeopardize the continued existence of the species if it is not listed under the ESA. Fed. Reg. 00 (June, 00). Defendants fail to show that the thirty-day waiting period will not pose a threat to the polar bear. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs request to order Defendants to waive the thirty-day notice period. CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. The Court orders Defendants to publish in the Federal Register the final listing determination for the polar bear on or before May, 00. The Court orders Defendants to waive the thirty-day notice period, pursuant to U.S.C. (d)(). Therefore, the published rule will take effect immediately upon publication of the final listing determination. The motions to intervene and to file an amicus brief are denied as moot. On May, 00, the parties shall notify the Court if the final listing determination has been published and, if so, judgment 0 for Plaintiffs will be entered, with costs awarded to Plaintiffs. Otherwise, the parties shall appear for a case management conference on May, 00 at :00 p.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: //0 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 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;
Case 3:15-cv-00333-JLH Document 39 Filed 04/13/16 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION NUCOR STEEL-ARKANSAS; and NUCOR-YAMATO STEEL COMPANY PLAINTIFFS
Case 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 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 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 1:08-cv-00225-EJL-CWD Document 34 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE STATE OF IDAHO OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff, Case No.
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
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.
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
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
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
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 4:14-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-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,
Case 3:09-cv-00729-HA Document 20 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 10 Page ID#: 86 IGNACIA S. MORENO, Assistant Attorney General SETH M. BARSKY, Acting Section Chief BRADLEY H. OLIPHANT, Trial Attorney (Cal. Bar
Case: 3:12-cv-00818-lsa Document #: 33 Filed: 02/03/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 12-C-0818 JOHN
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-22300-KMM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2011 Page 1 of 9 NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION and FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION Plaintiffs, V. W. CRAIG FUGATE, Administrator, Federal Emergency
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
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2013 Case Summaries Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. Katelyn J. Hepburn University of Montana School of Law, firstname.lastname@example.org
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
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: 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
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,
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.
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
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:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MARYLAND ACCOUNTING SERVICES, INC., et al. Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CCB-11-CV-00145 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs
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
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:-cv-0-SBA Document0 Filed// Page of 0 SAM HIRSCH Acting Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice LESLIE M. HILL (D.C. Bar No. 00) Leslie.Hill@usdoj.gov
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.
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
Case 1:03-cv-01711-HHK Document 138-1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MARILYN VANN, RONALD MOON, DONALD MOON, CHARLENE WHITE, RALPH THREAT, FAITH RUSSELL,
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 1:13-cv-00563-RBJ Document 56 Filed 09/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 Civil Action No 13-cv-00563-RBJ W.L. (BILL) ARMSTRONG; JEFFREY S. MAY; WILLIAM L. (WIL) ARMSTRONG III; JOHN A. MAY; DOROTHY A.
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 ***********************************
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
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,
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
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: 5:14-cv-00136-DCR-REW Doc #: 138 Filed: 04/15/15 Page: 1 of 8 - Page ID#: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington GEORGE VINCENT VAUGHN, 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.,
Case 1:12-cv-00275-JFM Document 12 Filed 06/11/12 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS THE DAVIS GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. No. 12-275C (Senior Judge Merow THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.
Case 1:12-cv-01182-RJL Document 19 Filed 09/19/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. Plaintiff, v. Civil Case No. 12-1182 (RJL DEPARTMENT OF THE
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 11-01923-EPK Doc 38 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 9 [Tagged Opinion] ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on November 17, 2011. Erik P. Kimball, Judge United States Bankruptcy Court UNITED STATES
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,
Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Civil Remedies Division Scott Christie, Psy.D. (OI File No. H-12-42635-9) Petitioner, v. The Inspector General. Docket No. C-14-88 Decision
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND NICOLE MARIE CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 05-38S HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. DECISION AND ORDER WILLIAM E. SMITH, United
Case 3:13-cv-00054 Document 120 Filed in TXSD on 05/04/15 Page 1 of 7 This case is being reviewed for possible publication by American Maritime Cases, Inc. ( AMC ). If this case is published in AMC s book
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 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,
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
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
In the United States Court of Appeals No. 13 2114 For the Seventh Circuit BLYTHE HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, et al., Plaintiffs Appellants, v. JOHN A. DEANGELIS, et al., Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the
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
Page 1 STEVEN POLNICKY, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON; WELLS FARGO & COMPANY LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN, Defendants. No. C 13-1478 SI UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 15-1100 FRANCIS J. GUGLIELMELLI Appellant v. NOT PRECEDENTIAL STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
Case :-cv-0-tjh-jc Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #:0 0 NEWEGG INC., v. United States District Court Central District of California Western Division Plaintiff, EZRA SUTTON, P.A., et al., Defendants.
Case 1:14-cv-01265-JEB Document 17 Filed 09/23/14 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INGA L. PARSONS, et al., Plaintiffs, Civ. No. 14-1265 (JEB v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO
CASE 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
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,
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0721n.06 No. 13-2126 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PATRICK RUGIERO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; FANNIE MAE; MORTGAGE
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 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.
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
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
American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act: Prohibitions and Remedies
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 0:14-cv-00062-PAM-JSM Document 26 Filed 06/09/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Caleb Trainor and Isaac Trainor, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 0 HANNA ZEWDU, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California Plaintiff, CITIGROUP LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN, Defendant. / I. INTRODUCTION No. C 0-00 MMC (MEJ)
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
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-2-2015 In Re: National Pool Construction Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY WESTFIELD INSURANCE ) COMPANY, INC., ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) C.A. No. N14C-06-214 ALR ) MIRANDA & HARDT ) CONTRACTING AND BUILDING
Case: 12-6018 Document: 006111674322 Filed: 04/30/2013 Page: 1 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0435n.06 No. 12-6018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT GARY COLYER,
Case :-cv-0-dgc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 WO Wintrode Enterprises Incorporated, v. PSTL LLC, et al., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Plaintiff, Defendants. No. CV--0-PHX-DGC
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 4:05-cv-01278-GTE Document 25 Filed 12/08/2005 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION NATIONAL WILDLIFE FED N, ARKANSAS WILDLIFE FED N 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 3:08-cv-00486-G -BF Document 19 Filed 07/10/08 Page 1 of 13 PageID 340 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MARK ROTELLA, ET AL., VS. Plaintiffs, MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY
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 2:08-cv-01593-DSC Document 67 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA US AIRWAYS, INC. in its capacity as Fiduciary and Plan Administrators
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