CAUSE NO. RICHARD SANCHEZ, HEATHER IN THE DISTRICT COURT SANCHEZ, TODD KING AND LACI KING, Plaintiffs,
|
|
- MargaretMargaret Mitchell
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 CAUSE NO. RICHARD SANCHEZ, HEATHER IN THE DISTRICT COURT SANCHEZ, TODD KING AND LACI KING, Plaintiffs, v. OF UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, INC., AND SMITH INDUSTRIES, INC. Defendants. MIDLAND COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION & REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND JURY REQUEST TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COME Plaintiffs, Richard Sanchez, Heather Sanchez, Todd King and Laci King, complaining of Union Pacific Railroad, Inc. and Smith Industries, Inc. and for such cause of action would respectfully show the Court as follows: I. DISCOVERY 1.01 Pursuant to Rule of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery in this case under level 3 (Rule Texas Rules of Civil Procedure). II. PARTIES 2.01 Plaintiff Richard Sanchez is an individual and resident of El Paso County, Colorado Plaintiff Heather Sanchez is an individual and resident of El Paso County, Colorado Plaintiff Todd King is an individual and resident of Bexar County, Texas, and a citizen of the State of Texas. Page 1
2 2.04 Plaintiff Laci King is an individual and resident of Bexar County, Texas, 2.05 Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Co. (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Railroad) is a corporation with its principal place of business in Delaware. Defendant railroad may be served with process by and through its registered agent: C T Corporation System at 350 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas Defendant Railroad owned the tracks and operated the train involved in this wreck Defendant Smith Industries, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Smith) is a corporation with its principal place of business in Midland County, Texas. Defendant Smith may be served with process by and through its registered agent: Jimmie B. Todd at 3800 E. 42 nd Street, Suite 409, Odessa, Texas III. VENUE AND JURISDICTION 3.01 Venue is proper in Midland County, Texas, because it is the County in which all or a substantial part of the events/omissions giving rise to this cause of action occurred Plaintiffs have suffered damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court Pursuant to 49 U.S.C this case is appropriately brought in state court rather than federal court. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this petition as needed to further establish why this case is appropriately brought in this Court. All allegations herein related to Defendant Railroad are based upon and should be interpreted as state causes of action seeking damages under state law for personal injury, death, or property damage, based upon one or more of the following: a. Defendant Railroad has failed to comply with the Federal standard of care established by regulations or orders issued by the Secretary of Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters), or the Secretary of Homeland Security Page 2
3 (with respect to railroad security matters), covering the subject matter as provided in subsection (a) of 49 U.S.C ; b. Defendant Railroad has failed to comply with its own plans, rules, or standards that Defendant Railroad created pursuant to a regulation or order issued by either the Secretary of Transportation or the Secretary of Homeland Security; c. Defendant Railroad has failed to comply with State laws, regulations, and orders that are not incompatible with subsection (a)(2) of 49 U.S.C IV. PLAINTIFFS NARRATIVE 4.01 During the afternoon hours of November 15th, 2012, Plaintiffs were riding on the trailer of a flatbed truck which was being used as a parade float. Plaintiffs were part of a group of wounded veterans and their spouses participating in an event known as Hunt for Heroes. The trailer they were riding on was part of a parade carrying the Plaintiffs and other veterans to a banquet honoring their service and their sacrifices to the United States The flatbed trailer Plaintiffs were riding on was being pulled by a truck owned by Defendant Smith; an employee of Defendant Smith was operating the truck at the time of the crash The truck was in Midland, Midland County, Texas traveling westbound on Front Street and turned southbound onto Garfield Street. Immediately upon turning onto Garfield Street, the truck encountered an at-grade railroad crossing owned and maintained by Defendant Railroad. This crossing is known by its DOT designation of L Due partially to the inclined approach and due to the crossing geometry and the Plaintiffs who were seated on the trailer, the truck slowly proceeded across the tracks. The crossing gates lowered behind the tractor and struck some of the veterans. Within seconds of the crossing gate lowering, the trailer was struck by a freight train traveling Page 3
4 east at a high rate of speed. The train was being operated by unknown employees of Defendant Railroad Plaintiffs were seriously injured in the collision. V. CAUSES OF ACTION 5.01 Defendants have a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring or killing members of the public. In this case Defendants breached their duty by failing to exercise reasonable care. As a direct proximate result of the Defendants breach of this duty, Plaintiffs suffered damages. All acts or omissions of Defendants constitute negligence, gross negligence, willful and wanton conduct, recklessness, intentional conduct, and demonstrate a reckless and intentional disregard for the safety of Plaintiffs. A. Negligence of Defendant Railroad 5.02 The occurrence described in this petition is a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Railroad: a. In failing to provide a reasonable and timely audible warning of an approaching train; b. In failing to provide a reasonable and timely visual warning of an approaching train; c. In failing to provide a safe railroad crossing; d. In failing to apply the brakes or otherwise slow the train; e. In failing to keep a proper lookout; f. In failing to remedy the hazardous conditions posed by this grade crossing that existed for an extended period of time; g. In routinely ignoring the hazardous conditions posed by this grade crossing; h. In failing to protect the crossing by issuing a slow order for rail traffic; i. In failing to recognize that the conditions readily apparent at this crossing created an essentially local safety hazard; j. In failing to properly train and instruct its crew; Page 4
5 k. In failing to properly maintain the railroad crossing; l. In failing to work with State and local authorities to establish an open line of communication and in failing to engage in any effort to evaluate the crossing conditions and characteristics; m. In failing to maintain adequate warning devices; n. In failing to provide a sufficient warning; o. In failing to implement effective Employee Notification Rules to Report Warning Signal Malfunctions; p. In failing to timely investigate and determine the nature of the crossing signal malfunction of this grade crossing; q. In failing to provide alternative means of warning highway traffic while crossing was malfunctioning; r. In failing to promptly initiate efforts to warn highway users of a malfunction with the crossing; s. In failing to notify the train crew of the activation failure at this crossing; t. In failing to notify local law enforcement with jurisdiction over the crossing, of the need to respond and control vehicular traffic; u. In failing to provide alternative means of actively warning highway users of approaching trains; v. In failing to provide a flagger at this crossing; w. In failing to slow trains or stop them prior to entering the crossing; x. In failing to keep legible, correct signal system circuit plans at the crossing warning system location; y. In failing to maintain the rail crossing warning system within the limits within which the system was designed to operate; z. In failing to determine the failure of the crossing to perform its intended function and in failing to adjust, repair or replace the component without undue delay; aa. In failing to maintain the railroad crossing to activate in accordance with the design of the warning system; and Page 5
6 bb. In failing to properly test the crossing warning system at least once every twelve months and to test any modifications to the system because of a change in train speed Defendant Railroad s conduct constitutes negligence per se. B. Respondeat Superior Responsibility of Defendant Smith 5.04 At all times material to this petition, Defendant Smith s truck driver was an employee or agent of Defendant Smith. The acts of the truck driver fall within the course and scope of his employment with Defendant Smith. Defendant Smith is liable for the negligent acts and omissions of its employees under the doctrine of vicarious liability, or respondeat superior. The occurrence in this petition is a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Smith s employee: a. In failing to keep a proper lookout; b. In failing to safely enter the at-grade crossing; c. In failing to clear the at-grade crossing prior to the arrival of a freight train; and d. In failing to exercise reasonable care for his passengers. Such negligence constitutes negligence per se. C. Gross Negligence 5.05 The wrong done by Defendants and/or their agents, servants, and officers was aggravated by the kind of conduct for which the law allows the imposition of exemplary damages, in that Defendants conduct, when viewed objectively from Defendants standpoint at the time of the conduct, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others, and Defendants were actually, subjectively aware of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others. Plaintiffs, therefore, seek exemplary damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of the court. Page 6
7 VI. DAMAGES Richard Sanchez 6.01 As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions in question, Plaintiff Richard Sanchez was severely injured. Plaintiff has suffered loss of economic and noneconomic damages associated with the injuries. Plaintiff has suffered damages as set forth below As a direct, proximate, and producing result of the conduct of the Defendants, as described above, Richard has suffered damages as follows: a. Physical pain and mental anguish sustained in the past; b. Physical pain and mental anguish that, in reasonable probability, Plaintiff will sustain in the future; c. Physical impairment sustained in the past; d. Physical impairment that, in reasonable probability, Plaintiff will sustain in the future; e. Medical care expenses sustained in the past; f. Medical care expenses that, in reasonable probability, Plaintiff will sustain in the future; g. Loss of wage earning capacity sustained in the past; h. Loss of wage earning capacity that, in reasonable probability, Plaintiff will sustain in the future; i. Loss of consortium; j. Disfigurement sustained in the past; and k. Disfigurement that, in reasonable probability, Plaintiff will sustain in the future. Richard Sanchez Bystander Claim 6.03 Richard Sanchez is the husband of Plaintiff Heather Sanchez. Richard was next to his wife at the time of this collision and witnessed the collision by sensory and contemporaneous observation thereof. Plaintiff Richard Sanchez witnessed the moment Page 7
8 of impact between the train and the trailer on which his wife was riding. As a direct and proximate result of witnessing the injuries to his wife caused by the negligence and careless conduct of Defendants, Richard Sanchez suffered severe mental and emotional anguish, including mental and emotional pain, torment, suffering and despair. Heather Sanchez 6.04 As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions in question, Plaintiff Heather Sanchez has suffered loss of economic and non-economic damages associated with the injuries. Plaintiff has suffered damages as set forth below As a direct, proximate, and producing result of the conduct of the Defendants, as described above, Heather has suffered damages as follows: a. Physical pain and mental anguish sustained in the past; b. Physical pain and mental anguish that, in reasonable probability, Plaintiff will sustain in the future; c. Physical impairment sustained in the past; d. Physical impairment that, in reasonable probability, Plaintiff will sustain in the future; e. Medical care expenses sustained in the past; f. Medical care expenses that, in reasonable probability, Plaintiff will sustain in the future; g. Loss of wage earning capacity sustained in the past; h. Loss of wage earning capacity that, in reasonable probability, Plaintiff will sustain in the future; and i. Loss of consortium. Heather Sanchez Bystander Claim 6.06 Heather Sanchez is the wife of Plaintiff Richard Sanchez. Heather was next to her husband at the time of this collision and witnessed the collision by sensory and contemporaneous observation thereof. Plaintiff Heather Sanchez witnessed the moment Page 8
9 of impact between the train and the trailer on which her husband was riding. As a direct and proximate result of witnessing the injuries to her husband caused by the negligence and careless conduct of Defendants, Heather Sanchez suffered severe mental and emotional anguish, including mental and emotional pain, torment, suffering and despair. Todd King 6.07 As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions in question, Plaintiff Todd King was injured. Plaintiff has suffered loss of economic and non-economic damages associated with the injuries. Todd King Bystander Claim 6.08 Todd King is the husband of Plaintiff Laci King. Todd was next to his wife at the time of this collision and witnessed the collision by sensory and contemporaneous observation thereof. Plaintiff Todd King witnessed the moment of impact between the train and the trailer on which his wife was riding. As a direct and proximate result of witnessing the injuries his wife caused by the negligence and careless conduct of Defendants, Todd King suffered severe mental and emotional anguish, including mental and emotional pain, torment, suffering and despair. Laci King 6.09 As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions in question, Plaintiff Laci King has suffered injury and loss of economic and non-economic damages associated with the injuries. Laci King Bystander Claim 6.10 Laci King is the wife of Plaintiff Todd King. Laci was next to her husband at the time of this collision and witnessed the collision by sensory and contemporaneous Page 9
10 observation thereof. Plaintiff Laci King witnessed the moment of impact between the train and the trailer on which her husband was riding. As a direct and proximate result of witnessing the injuries to her husband caused by the negligence and careless conduct of Defendants, Laci King suffered severe mental and emotional anguish, including mental and emotional pain, torment, suffering and despair. VII. APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION 7.01 This accident occurred as a result of Defendants negligence and gross negligence. Defendant Railroad had certain equipment that was involved in and/or related to the incident that needs to be preserved. Defendant Railroad s equipment includes the train s black box, downloads from the black box, video recordings, the railroad crossing, signal system, the railroad s track and right of way, the locomotive involved in the wreck and related documentary evidence, and the train itself Defendant Smith s equipment includes its truck, any video recordings, and the trailer Unless Defendants are prevented from restricting access to its equipment involved in the incident in question, Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed. If there is any damage, repair, change, or modification to Defendant Railroad s equipment or premises, or to Defendant Smith s equipment prior to the time that Plaintiffs counsel as well as experts, if any, retained by them are able to inspect and photograph said items, valuable evidence will undoubtedly be lost or destroyed. Therefore, Defendant Railroad should be enjoined from obstructing, preventing, or in any manner interfering with Plaintiffs attorneys, their experts, agents and employees from immediately making photographs, videotapes, copies, inspections and non-destructive examination and testing of Defendant Railroad s Page 10
11 equipment and premises involved in the accident. Further, Defendant Smith should be enjoined from obstructing, preventing, or in any manner interfering with Plaintiffs attorneys, their experts, agents and employees from immediately making photographs, videotapes, copies, inspections and non-destructive examination and testing of Defendant Smith s equipment involved in the accident. This Court should restrain Defendant Smith from moving or altering its equipment Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law or otherwise for the harm or damage set forth herein. Defendants and all of their owners, agents, employees and representatives should be enjoined from doing any act of any nature which would result in the alteration, repair, disposal, change or modification in any manner of the equipment involved in the incident in question, until it can be inspected and tested by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs believe that the equipment remains located at Defendants respective places of business and may be used, replaced, removed, altered, or modified by Defendants. In the event Defendants are not so enjoined, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm, damage and injury. Therefore, Defendants should be enjoined from allowing any persons, be they officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, experts, or repairmen or any other persons, from in any way altering the equipment and premises involved in or related to the incident until such time as Plaintiffs counsel, or experts retained by them, have had an opportunity to inspect and photograph same Plaintiffs counsel have made attempts to come to an agreement with Defendants regarding the preservation of evidence, but said attempts have been unsuccessful. Page 11
12 VIII. REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION 8.01 Plaintiffs ask the Court to set this application for temporary injunction for a hearing and, after the hearing, issue temporary injunctions against the Defendants. IX. PRAYER 9.01 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following: a. That a Temporary Injunction be issued after a hearing restraining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, repair persons, attorneys, and any and all other persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the Temporary Injunction, from obstructing, preventing, or in any manner interfering with Plaintiffs attorneys, their experts, agents and employees from immediately making photographs, videotapes, inspections and non-destructive examination and testing of Defendants equipment and premises involved in the accident; b. Enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, repair persons, attorneys, and any and all other persons in active concert or participation with them from doing any act of any nature which would result in the alteration, destruction, repair, change, movements or modification of Defendants equipment, which is the subject of this suit, until further order of the Court, unless such action is done to comply with a request or requirement or the NTSB, law enforcement, or other state or federal authority; c. Upon final trial, compensatory and exemplary damages as set forth above be awarded to Plaintiffs against Defendants; d. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; e. Costs of court; f. Such other, further and different relief to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled; and g. Plaintiffs request a jury trial. Page 12
13 Respectfully submitted, GLASHEEN, VALLES, & INDERMAN L.L.P Texas Avenue P.O. Box 1976 Lubbock, TX Tel: (806) Fax: (806) /s/ Kevin Glasheen Kevin Glasheen State Bar No John Cook IV State Bar No POTTROFF LAW OFFICE, P.A. 320 Sunset Avenue Manhattan, KS Tel: (785) Fax: (785) Bob Pottroff Kansas State Bar No Pending Pro Hac Vice ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF Page 13
14 JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby respectfully demands a trial by jury in this cause and herewith pays the required jury fee. /s/ Kevin Glasheen Kevin Glasheen STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF LUBBOCK VERIFICATION Before me, the undersigned Notary Public, on this day personally appeared Kevin Glasheen, who, after being duly sworn, stated under oath that he is the duly authorized agent for the Plaintiff in this action; that he has read the above petition; and that every statement contained in paragraphs 7.01 through 8.01 is within his personal knowledge and is true and correct. /s/ Kevin Glasheen Kevin Glasheen SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on the 28th day of November, 2012, to certify which witness my hand and official seal. /s/ Crystal Stone Notary Public, State of Texas. Page 14
14-05313-16 CAUSE NO. JULIE TORBERT, as next friend of IN THE DISTRICT COURT PHILIP ORMSTON V. DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS
14-05313-16 CAUSE NO. FILED: 7/15/2014 1:32:23 PM SHERRI ADELSTEIN Denton County District Clerk By: Heather Goheen, Deputy JULIE TORBERT, as next friend of IN THE DISTRICT COURT PHILIP ORMSTON Plaintiff
More informationPREVIEW. 1. The following form may be used to file a personal injury lawsuit.
Information or instructions: Plaintiff's original petition-auto accident 1. The following form may be used to file a personal injury lawsuit. 2. It assumes several plaintiffs were rear-ended by an employee
More informationPREVIEW PLEASE DO NOT COPY THIS DOCUMENT THANK YOU. LegalFormsForTexas.Com
Form: Plaintiff's original petition-wrongful Death [Name], PLAINTIFF vs. [Name], DEFENDANT [ IN THE [Type of Court] COURT [Court number] PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION 1. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1.1 Plaintiff
More informationCAUSE NO. JUSTIN GROGG IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, vs. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. Filed 13 May 7 P9:22 Gary Fitzsimmons District Clerk Dallas District JUSTIN GROGG IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, vs. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS RED LOBSTER OF TEXAS, INC. D/B/A RED LOBSTER OF
More informationvs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff JAMES SCHAIRER, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby sues
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE th 16 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO. JAMES SCHAIRER, individually, Plaintiff, vs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PAUL KERCHER,
More informationIN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, SALT LAKE COUNTY STATE OF UTAH. Case No. : Judge:
Alan W. Mortensen (6616) DEWSNUP, KING & OLSEN 36 South State Street, Ste. 2400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone (801) 533-0400 Facsimile (801) 363-4218 Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT STATE OF MISSOURI
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT STATE OF MISSOURI STEPHANIE BRUNO, 3900 NW 60 th Place Kansas City, Missouri 64151 and JOHN AND C.D. BRUNO, 4702 NW Linden Rd Kansas City,
More informationNO. STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY COUNTY, TEXAS. CVS PHARMACY, INC. Defendant. JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY COUNTY, TEXAS CVS PHARMACY, INC. Defendant. JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION TO THE HONORABLE
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA. v. Civil Action No.:CL12-1617 Plaintiff Demands Trial by Jury COMPLAINT
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA MIGUEL RUIZ, HUSAIN SALAH, MOHAMED ABDELWAHAM, ANDREW BRZEZINSKI, MARIO CLOTTER, HECTOR SANCHEZ, CLIFFORD LACON, and JIMMY SABGA, RICHARD HICKS Plaintiff,
More informationCOMPLAINT. COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, JERRY BYNUM, as Personal Representative of the Estate
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA JERRY BYNUM, as Personal Representative of the Estate of REGINA BYNUM, deceased; and JERRY BYNUM, individually, Plaintiffs,
More informationIN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH
Robert G. Gilchrist (3715) Jeff M. Sbaih (14014) EISENBERG GILCHRIST & CUTT 900 Parkside Tower 215 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: (801) 366-9100 Email: rgichrist@egclegal.com Email:
More informationPlaintiff Carol Parker ( Plaintiff ), residing at 32 Coleman Way, Jackson, NJ 08527, by her undersigned counsel, alleges the following upon personal
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAROL PARKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, PARADE ENTERPRISES, LLC, No. 3:14-CV-08084-MAS-DEA AMENDED COMPLAINT
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Fernando F. Chavez, Esq. SBN 0 CHAVEZ LAW GROUP 00 West Beverly Blvd., Montebello, Ca 00 Phone: () 00-0, Facsimile: (0) 1-01 E-mail: ffchavez0@gmail.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE
More information"\ll, NO.&A $ $ ' jf, _ [ $ , TEXA$1T. ':":,s /d:!.' f::{ 'i.jl. ANGELA BISHOFF and HEATH BISHOFF. DISTRICT COURT PLAINTIFFS, VS.
NO.&A I t)t^ ' jf, _ "\ll, I ANGELA BISHOFF and HEATH BISHOFF. VS. PLAINTIFFS, ROADTIOUSE OF TEMPLE, LTD d/b/a TEXAS ROADHOUSE and STEVE LEE ORTIZ DEFENDANTS. DISTRICT COURT FJ 3 s c9 qp rf 1l co L.i x):'*
More informationNo. 45TH. Plaintiff EDGEWOOD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT files its Original Petition
FILED 9/24/2014 10:11:33 AM Donna Kay McKinney Bexar County District Clerk Accepted By: Roxanne Mujica 2014CI15241 No. W/ JD EDGEWOOD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. Plaintiff, KOONTZ/MCCOMBS CONSTRUCTION,
More informationCOMPLAINT. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF] hereby sues the Defendants, [DEFENDANT #1], [DEFENDANT INTRODUCTION
Form 2:40-2 Complaint Negligence, Motor Vehicle IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ## JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR [COUNTY], FLORIDA [PLAINTIFF], Plaintiff, CASE NO.: ##-##### ## ## GENERAL JURISDICTION vs. [DEFENDANT
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA * *
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA vs. Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NUMBER CV-99-792 Defendants. COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs, Bryan K. Bunten and Lisa Bunten, are over the age of nineteen (19) years
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LYNCHBURG (CHARLOTTESVILLE) DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No. v.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LYNCHBURG (CHARLOTTESVILLE) DIVISION UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA PATENT FOUNDATION Plaintiff, Case No. v. HAMILTON COMPANY AND HAMILTON
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION NATIONAL RAILROAD ) PASSENGER CORP., and ) CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 4:15-cv-00068 ) GUY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD., MITSUBISHI HEAVY
More informationPLAINTIFF S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL. MYRIAM DEL SOCORRO LOPEZ, by and through his undersigned counsel, and files this First
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO.: 08-56892 CA 27 WILSON TORRES, individually, and as Personal Representative
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE ASBESTOS LITIGATION: STEVEN P. SCHULTZ and KIMBERLY S. SCHULTZ, Plaintiffs, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY; COTY, INC.; CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY (sued
More information1.1 Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 190.4, plaintiffs move the Court for a Level 3 II. PARTIES
CAUSE NO. VALERIE REDUS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND ROBERT M. REDUS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT CAMERON REDUS OF BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS V. UNIVERSITY OF INCARNATE
More informationIN THE STATE COURT OF COBB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA
IN THE STATE COURT OF COBB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA (1) PETE GUY, as the Administrator ) of the Estate of Annie Guy, ) deceased; and ) (2) PETE GUY, LINDA SMITH, ) CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. NAYLOR GUY, JR.,
More informationCase 3:10-cv-02236-DRD Document 31 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 9
Case 3:10-cv-02236-DRD Document 31 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO DAVID ASHE Plaintiff, CIVIL NO. 10-2236 ( DRD ) vs. DISTRIBUIDORA NORMA,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. COMPLAINT AT LAW
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION INJURED PERSON, v. Plaintiff, RESPONSIBLE PARTY, a body corporate and politic, Defendant. No. COMPLAINT AT LAW NOW COMES the
More informationHow To Prove Guilt In A Court Case In Texas
CAUSE NO. 02-01125-J CHARLES DURHAM IN THE 191ST DISTRICT COURT VS. LARVAN PERAILTA DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO RECOVER EXPENSES OF PROOF TO THE HONORABLE COURT: Comes Now, Charles Durham,
More informationNOTICE OF CLAIM. Claimant, -against-
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ORANGE -------------------------------------------------------------------------x In the Matter of the Claim of JEAN H. PIERRE, JR., AS NATURAL PARENT AND
More informationGRAY, L.L.C. 760 ROUTE 10 WEST, SUITE 203 WHIPPANY, NEW JERSEY 07981 PH: 973-240-7313 F: 973-240-7316 Attorneys for Plaintiff Henry Kent
POMPELIO, FOREMAN & GRAY, L.L.C. 760 ROUTE 10 WEST, SUITE 203 WHIPPANY, NEW JERSEY 07981 PH: 973-240-7313 F: 973-240-7316 Attorneys for Plaintiff Henry Kent HENRY KENT, vs. Plaintiff, SMILES II RESTAURANT,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI JANE DOE INDIVIDUALLY ) and on BEHALF OF ) THE CLASS OF PERSONS ) DESIGNATED BY 537.080, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case Number *************** vs. ) ) DEFENDANT
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
1 0 1 MARC D. ADELMAN Attorney at Law State Bar No. Liberty Station Historic Decatur Road, Suite 00 San Diego, CA - (1) -0 Phone (1) -0 Fax Email: AdelmanMD@aol.com Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 MICHAEL P. VERNA(# 4070) NATHANIEL B. DUNCAN (#463) 2 JEANNE YANG (#4) BOWLES & VERNA LLP 3 N. California Blvd., Suite 75 Walnut Creek, CA 456 4 Telephone: () 35-3300 Facsimile: () 35-0371 5 Email: mverna@bowlesverna.com
More informationAttorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY CENTRAL DISTRICT STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE
VACHON LAW FIRM Michael R. Vachon, Esq. (SBN ) 0 Via Del Campo, Suite San Diego, California Tel.: () -0 Fax: () - Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY CENTRAL
More informationNO. PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION. Plaintiff the STATE OF TEXAS, acting by and through the Attorney General of Texas,
NO. STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff, v. ABIO FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. Defendant IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
More informationCOMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 (303) 271-6145 Plaintiffs: NORMAN NEWELL and LINDA NEWELL, v. Defendants: COURT USE ONLY APRIA HEALTHCARE, INC.;
More informationSTATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE HOWARD COURT ) SS: COUNTY OF HOWARD ) CAUSE NO.: APPEARANCE BY ATTORNEY IN CIVIL CASE
STATE OF INDIANA IN THE HOWARD COURT SS: COUNTY OF HOWARD CAUSE NO.: INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE, Plaintiff, v. DAVE EVANS TIRE, INC. and DAVE EVANS, Defendants. APPEARANCE BY ATTORNEY IN CIVIL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION ZIPIT WIRELESS INC., Plaintiff, v. BLACKBERRY LIMITED F/K/A RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED and BLACKBERRY CORPORATION f/k/a
More informationCAUSE NO. DC-12-07825
CAUSE NO. DC-12-07825 Filed 13 September 9 P4:46 Gary Fitzsimmons District Clerk Dallas District CADE MANNETTI, v. Plaintiff, VISIONARY RESTAURANTS LLC, VISIONARY STAFFING LLC, WILLIAM McCROREY, AND THOMAS
More informationCAUSE NO. V. WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. Defendant. JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION
CAUSE NO. MARY DOE and IN THE DISTRICT COURT JOHN DOE, Plaintiffs, V. WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION
More informationJEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE DIVISION. MELISSA ROWE, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of E.R
NO. MELISSA ROWE, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of E.R VS. COMPLAINT JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE DIVISION PLAINTIFF LANA KAELIN c/o Eastern High School 12400 Old Shelbyville Road Louisville,
More informationFiling # 22009228 Electronically Filed 12/29/2014 03:48:06 PM
Filing # 22009228 Electronically Filed 12/29/2014 03:48:06 PM PENELOPE BELVOIR, as Executor de son Tort for the Pending Estate of Robert Belvoir, Deceased, vs. Plaintiff, ROPES COURSES, INC., FB ORLANDO
More informationNo. Plaintiff Kelvin Bledsoe ( Plaintiff ), by his undersigned counsel, brings claims
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KELVIN BLEDSOE, Plaintiff, v. SAAQIN, INC., No. COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. Plaintiff Kelvin
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9 th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9 th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA DEAN KUMANCHIK, vs. Plaintiff, Case No.: UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LTD d/b/a UNIVERSAL STUDIOS, a Florida
More informationThe Judges of the Fulton Superior Court hereby create a "Business Case Division" (hereinafter referred to as the "Division").
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA Atlanta October 11, 2012 The Honorable Supreme Court met pursuant to adjournment. The following order was passed: It is ordered that Paragraph 5 of Atlanta Judicial Circuit Rule
More informationMISC Docket Nov 99m 90,25
ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS MISC Docket Nov 99m 90,25 Appointment of a District Judge to Preside in a State Bar Disciplinary Action The Supreme Court of Texas hereby appoints the Honorable Bob
More informationFIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
District Court, Denver County, Colorado 1437 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80202 GUILLERMO ARTEAGA-GOMEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DATE FILED: January 22, 2015 6:02
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION WAYNE WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, PROTECT SECURITY, LLC. Defendant.
More informationHow To Sue A Truck Driver For Causing A Car Accident In New Jersey
Gregg D. Trautmann, Esq. TRAUTMANN PRYOR & LUTHER, LLC 262 East Main Street Rockaway, NJ 07866 (973) 316-8100 Attorney for Plaintiff ROBYN KLEINHANS Plaintiff vs. RALPH CLAYTON AND SONS, INC. (A New Jersey
More informationw' Floor - against - SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK Index No.: Date Filed: TAMARA VANDERHYDEN, Plaintiff,
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK TAMARA VANDERHYDEN, - against - Plaintiff, PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF NEW YORK CITY, BETH ISRAEL MEDICAL CENTER, GERALD ZUPNICK, M.D., MAURE JACQUELINE
More informationCASE NO.: CIVIL DIVISION COMPLAINT. through undersigned counsel, and hereby sues Defendant, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., a Florida GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, vs. Plaintiff, CASE NO.: CIVIL DIVISION WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., Defendant, / COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiff,,
More informationCase 1:13-cv-00034-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:13-cv-00034-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 STEELHEAD LICENSING LLC, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE v. Plaintiff, AT&T, INC., and AT&T MOBILITY
More informationCAUSE NO. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION. Greg Abbott, and complains of OLD UNITED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ( Defendant ), and I.
CAUSE NO. STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff, v. OLD UNITED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SOMEWHERE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Harvey C. Berger (SBN POPE & BERGER 0 West "C" Street, Suite 100 San Diego, California 1 Telephone: (1-1 Facsimile: (1 - Attorneys for Plaintiff PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case:-cv-0 Document Filed0// Page of Michael Millen Attorney at Law (#) Calle Marguerita Ste. 0 Telephone: Fax: (0) -0 mikemillen@aol.com Attorney for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT
More informationHow To File A Lawsuit Against A Corporation In California
1 2 3 4 5 [ATTORNEY NAME] (ATTORNEY STATE BAR NUMBER) [ATTORNEY EMAIL ADDRESS] [LAW FIRM NAME] [LAW FIRM STREET ADDRESS] [LAW FIRM CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE] [LAW FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER] [LAW FIRM FAX NUMBER]
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION SIMON DOMINGUEZ, PEDRO DOMINGUEZ, JOSE FRANCISCO BRIONES, and ROBERT PEREZ On Behalf of Themselves and All
More informationBNSF RAILWAY COMPANY as Successor in Interest to the ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, C O M P L A I N T
FILED IN MY OFFICE DISTRICT COURT CLERK 2/10/2012 9:16:03 AM GERI LYNN SANCHEZ STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF VALENCIA THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT KAREN R. SALAZAR, Individually and as Personal Representative
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA BROWARD DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No.: COMPLAINT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA BROWARD DIVISION NANCY PRITCHARD, v. Plaintiff, Case No.: KAPLAN HIGHER EDUCATION CORPORATION; KAPLAN HIGHER EDUCATION CORPORATION, as PLAN ADMINISTRATOR;
More informationComplaint as permitted by Case Management Order # 4 and Implementing Order PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
[INSERT NAME], Plaintiff(s) vs. HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORPORATION, a New Jersey Corporation, d/b/a STRYKER ORTHOPAEDICS, JILL DOE MANUFACTURERS (1-10), JACK DOE WHOLESALERS (1-10), JAKE DOE SELLERS (1-10),
More informationTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-00-loa Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Bradley Jardis, vs. Keith M. Knowlton, L.L.C. SBN 0 S. Rural Road, Suite 0, PMB# Tempe, Arizona -00 (0 -; FAX (0 - Keith M. Knowlton - SBN 0 Attorney for Plaintiff
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE NO. Defendant
William D. Marler Marler Clark LLP PS 01 Second Ave, Suite 00 Seattle, WA 1-0 Ph: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE DOROTHY H. PEARCE, vs. Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE DERMAFOCUS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, v. Plaintiff, ULTHERA, INC., a Delaware corporation. Civil Action No: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendant.
More informationHow To Pay $24.55 Million To A Paraplegic Woman
Cook County Jury Awards $24.55 Million to Woman Paralyzed in Car Accident 4.4.12 This case was reported informally by Patrick Dowd, Chicago, Illinois attorney, and the jury verdict was reported by Westlaw
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH
// :: PM CV 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH 1 1 AMANDA FRITZ, as Personal Representative for the ESTATE OF STEVEN FRITZ; v. Plaintiff, CARSON OIL CO., INC., an
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:14-cv-03585-N Document 1 Filed 10/03/14 Page 1 of 16 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION DAVID HARRISON, Individually and as Personal Representative
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:11-cv-00225-KDE-SS Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ) MARIO CACHO and ANTONIO OCAMPO, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) No. v. ) ) SHERIFF
More informationLIABILITY UNDER THE TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT
LIABILITY UNDER THE TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT By: Richard Evans Staff Attorney Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool The King Can Do No Wrong 1 Sovereign Immunity Under common law, state and political
More informationCase 3:15-cv-01953-MO Document 1 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 8
Case 3:15-cv-01953-MO Document 1 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 8 Brenna K. Legaard, OSB #001658 Email: blegaard@schwabe.com SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C. 1211 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 1900 Portland, OR 97204
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE RULE 71
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE RULE 71 SYSTEM FOR THE INITIAL DETERMINATION OF LIABILITY UNDER COMPULSORY MOTOR VEHICLE LIABILITY INSURANCE SECTION 1. LEGAL BASIS This
More informationCase 4:09-cv-00502-RCC Document 1 Filed 09/04/09 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff,
Case :0-cv-000-RCC Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of DAVID MONROE QUANTZ, P.L.C. E. Camp Lowell Dr. Tucson, Arizona ( -00 David Monroe Quantz State Bar No: 000 david@quantzlawfirm.com Attorney for Plaintiff
More information2006 WL 6142740 (Miss.Cir.) (Trial Pleading) Circuit Court of Mississippi. Lee County. No. CV05-045 (A)L. June 12, 2006. Second Amended Complaint
2006 WL 6142740 (Miss.Cir.) (Trial Pleading) Circuit Court of Mississippi. Lee County Charlene DUNN, Plaintiff, v. John A. MURPHY, Future Benefits, Inc. American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, BLUE MAX TRUCKING, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:02CV COMPLAINT
More informationCase 2:15-cv-00643-JNP Document 2 Filed 09/08/15 Page 1 of 10
Case 2:15-cv-00643-JNP Document 2 Filed 09/08/15 Page 1 of 10 John W. Huber, United States Attorney (#7226) John K. Mangum, Assistant U.S. Attorney (#2072) District of Utah 185 South State Street, #300
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
JOHN A. RUSSO, City Attorney (SBN ) RANDOLPH W. HALL, Chief Asst. City Attorney (SBN 00) JAMES F. HODGKINS, Supervising Trial Attorney (SBN 1) One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, th Floor Oakland, California Telephone:
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR THURSTON COUNTY
THE HONORABLE CAROL MURPHY 1 1 1 1 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR THURSTON COUNTY TARVA LEE, ) ) No: --00- Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF ) CONTRACT, BAD FAITH, FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION RPOST HOLDINGS, INC., RPOST COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, and RMAIL LIMITED, CIVIL ACTION NO. Plaintiffs, v. ADOBE SYSTEMS
More informationWORKERS' COMPENSATION SUBROGATION AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS
WORKERS' COMPENSATION SUBROGATION AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS I. INTRODUCTION BY RICHARD M. JUREWICZ, ESQUIRE GALFAND BERGER, LLP 1835 Market Street, Suite 2710 Philadelphia, PA 19103 1-800-222-8792 (ext. 829)
More informationCase 6:15-cv-00660 Document 1 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1
Case 6:15-cv-00660 Document 1 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC and INTELLECTUAL VENTURES
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MOBILE TRANSFORMATION LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Case No. A&E TELEVISION NETWORKS, LLC JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. COMPLAINT Plaintiff
More informationFELA Railroad Injuries
FELA Railroad Injuries Mark A. Anderson Contents FELA and the Legal Rights of Injured Railroad Workers...1 Cases Eligible Under FELA...2 The Railroad Company's Liability...4 Dealing With Your Employer
More informationAPPENDIX A IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
APPENDIX A IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS In re: MICHELE GRAHAM, Case No.: 02-43262 (Chapter 7 Debtor. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Adversary Proceeding
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Case 6:10-cv-00557 Document 1 Filed 10/21/10 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION TRANSDATA, INC., Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 6:10-cv-557
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Civil Action No. Ex rel. ) ) FILED IN CAMERA AND Plaintiff, ) UNDER SEAL ) vs. ) FALSE CLAIMS ACT ) MEDICAID FRAUD, ), and ) JURY
More informationCase 2:13-cv-01431-RBS Document 1 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:13-cv-01431-RBS Document 1 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DAVID GARCIA : 7427 Belden Street : Basement Apt. : PHILADELPHIA,
More informationCase 6:15-cv-00145-JRG-KNM Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1
Case 6:15-cv-00145-JRG-KNM Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION SMARTFLASH LLC, and SMARTFLASH TECHNOLOGIES
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE : STATE OF CONNECTICUT, and : STATE OF CONNECTICUT : Plaintiffs, : : v. : Civ. No. : HEALTH NET OF THE NORTHEAST, INC., : HEALTH
More informationORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS. Misc Docket No. 97-_go I
ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Misc Docket No. 97-_go I Appointment of a District Judge to Preside in a State Bar Disciplinary Action The Supreme Court of Texas hereby appoints the Honorable George
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:13-cv-02282-RWS Document 1 Filed 07/09/13 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION DE ANGELO BENTLEY, ) MARQUES ROBERTSON, ) IKEYMA MCKENTRY, ) individually,
More informationCase 1:15-cv-01148 Document 1 Filed 06/02/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:15-cv-01148 Document 1 Filed 06/02/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO D THREE ENTERPRISES, LLC, v. Plaintiff, RILLITO RIVER SOLAR LLC d/b/a ECOFASTEN
More informationCase: 1:12-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 1:12-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION BENJAMIN PEREZ and BOBBY ) MILTON, ) ) Plaintiffs,
More informationCONUMONWEALTHOFKENTUCKY FA VETTE CIRCUIT COURT CASE NO. ;V -{ l-7031 DIVISIONS:-. 306 W Main Street, Suite 512 C. T. CORPORATION SYSTEM
.:" \ ".. "!~'._. '1 I CONUMONWEALTHOFKENTUCKY FA VETTE CIRCUIT COURT CASE NO. ;V -{ l-7031 DIVISIONS:-. ANTONIO TAYLOR, JR., a minor, and by his next friend and mother, JERRISHA COOMER PLAINTIFF v. COMPLAINT
More informationSanitary Sewer Leads Homeowner Responsibility
Sanitary Sewer Leads Homeowner Responsibility The Village of Paw Paw is not responsible for sanitary sewer back-ups that result from damage, collapse, or blockages in the sanitary sewer leads from the
More information1416-CV14463. 1. Plaintiff is a resident of Jackson County, Missouri and is the biological mother of
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR JACKSON COT]NTY, MISSOURI AT INDEPENDENCE TAMMY BRYANT, Natural Mother of Kevin'Wahlers, Deceased, vs. Plaintiff ASRA, LLC dlbla 40 HIGHV/AY SINCLAIR Serve Registered Agent: Rizwan
More informationGOODIX TECHNOLOGY INC., SHENZHEN HUIDING TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. A/K/A SHENZHEN GOODIX TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP Cono A. Carrano (pro hac vice to be filed) Email: ccarrano@akingump.com David C. Vondle (Bar
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CA No. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 92 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE APPLE INC., vs. Plaintiff, High Tech Computer Corp., a/k/a HTC Corp., HTC (B.V.I.
More informationCase 1:13-cv-00001-SEB-TAB Document 1 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1
Case 1:13-cv-00001-SEB-TAB Document 1 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION JAIME MILLER, Plaintiff v. No.: 1:13-cv-1 CITY
More informationCase 1:15-cv-13004-GAO Document 1 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:15-cv-13004-GAO Document 1 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KEITH MATHEWS On behalf of himself and Others similarly situated Plaintiff, Case
More informationNO. 096-267963-13 PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE
MARIA LEMUS and SERGIO MOLINA, individually and as next friends of SERGIO E. MOLINA, a minor child, NO. 096-267963-13 IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiffs V. 96 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CLEBURNE METAL WORKS LLC
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION
Jonathan L. Hauser Richard M. Cieri (admitted pro hac vice) VSB No. 18688 Christopher J. Marcus (admitted pro hac vice) TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP Michael A. Cohen (admitted pro hac vice) 222 Central Park Avenue
More information