IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12-cv-2922 COMPLAINT

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12-cv-2922 COMPLAINT"

Transcription

1 Case 4:12-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/01/12 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION L.L.C. and CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12-cv-2922 GASTAR EXPLORATION, LTD., GASTAR EXPLORATION TEXAS, LP and GASTAR EXPLORATION TEXAS, LLC, Defendants. COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT: Plaintiffs Chesapeake Exploration L.L.C., formerly known as Chesapeake Exploration Limited Partnership, and Chesapeake Energy Corporation (collectively, Chesapeake ) complain of Defendants Gastar Exploration, Ltd., Gastar Exploration Texas, LP, formerly known as First Source Gas, L.P., and Gastar Exploration Texas, LLC, formerly known as Bossier Basin, LLC, as follows: I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Chesapeake Exploration L.L.C., formerly known as Chesapeake Exploration Limited Partnership, is an Oklahoma limited liability company that has its principal place of business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The members of Chesapeake Exploration L.L.C. are citizens of Oklahoma.

2 Case 4:12-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/01/12 Page 2 of Plaintiff Chesapeake Energy Corporation is an Oklahoma corporation that has its principal place of business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 3. Defendant Gastar Exploration, Ltd. ( Gastar ) is an Alberta (Canada) corporation that has its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Gastar may be served with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas Defendant Gastar Exploration Texas, LP, formerly known as First Source Gas, L.P. ( First Source ), is a Delaware limited partnership that has its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. On information and belief, the partners of Gastar Exploration Texas, LP are all citizens of Delaware, Michigan and/or Texas. Gastar Exploration Texas, LP may be served with process through its registered agent Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas Defendant Gastar Exploration Texas, LLC, formerly known as Bossier Basin, LLC, is the general partner of First Source and is a Delaware limited liability company that has its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. On information and belief, the members of Gastar Exploration Texas, LLC are all citizens of Delaware, Michigan and/or Texas. Gastar Exploration Texas, LLC may be served with process through its registered agent Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas

3 Case 4:12-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/01/12 Page 3 of 16 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C because Plaintiffs and Defendants are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interest and costs. This dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement among the parties, and the Court may issue an order compelling arbitration of this dispute upon the motion of Plaintiffs and/or Defendants. Plaintiffs expressly retain their right to seek arbitration of this dispute, and do not intend the filing of this Complaint to in any way be construed as a waiver of that right. 7. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C because Defendants reside in this District and because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this case occurred in this District. III. SUMMARY OF CLAIM 8. This dispute involves contracts that were entered into based on a mutual mistake of fact. Plaintiffs seek rescission of the agreements that were executed based on that mistake, and to have the parties returned to status quo ante. Rescission is also appropriate because the consideration for those agreements failed. In the alternative, Plaintiffs seek restitution of the amounts that Defendants unjustly received under those agreements, because the agreements were thwarted by mutual mistake and failure of consideration, rendered impossible or impracticable to perform, and/or frustrated before Plaintiffs were able to receive the benefits that they were promised. 3

4 Case 4:12-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/01/12 Page 4 of 16 IV. FACTS 9. This dispute involves an oil and gas field located in Leon and Robertson Counties, Texas known as the Hilltop Prospect. As of early 2005, Defendant Gastar (and its affiliates and subsidiaries) owned leasehold working interests in the Hilltop Prospect covering approximately 54,000 gross acres and 38,000 net acres. Gastar had begun to develop this prospect, drilling six (6) wells to various deep formations, resulting in the production of significant amounts of natural gas. At that time, Gastar estimated that the Hilltop Prospect could accommodate up to 200 productive wells. 10. Although the results from Gastar s initial wells were promising, the cost of Gastar single-handedly developing the entire prospect was prohibitive, as the cost of drilling and completing a single well averaged $10 million or more. Therefore, Gastar decided it would be advantageous to seek an industry partner who could share the cost of developing the Hilltop Prospect. 11. In June 2005, Chesapeake was approached by an investment banker working on Gastar s behalf to see if it would be interested in acquiring a portion of Gastar s interest in the Hilltop Prospect. Chesapeake was an attractive business target to Gastar, because Chesapeake was well-known as an active driller that could provide a deep source of funds for Gastar to develop the prospect and add credibility to Gastar s efforts. 12. After a period of evaluation and negotiation, on September 16, 2005, Chesapeake entered into a letter of intent with Gastar under which Chesapeake agreed to: (1) purchase one-third (1/3) of Gastar s interest in the Hilltop Prospect; (2) purchase 4

5 Case 4:12-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/01/12 Page 5 of % of the outstanding shares of Gastar common stock; and (3) enter into an exploration and development agreement with Gastar covering certain counties in Texas. The three undertakings described in the letter of intent were interdependent and essential parts of an integrated transaction, all three of which, in the words of Russell Porter, President and Chief Executive Officer of Gastar, had to be closed simultaneously or none would be closed. 13. After completing due diligence on this transaction, Gastar and First Source (an indirectly wholly owned subsidiary of Gastar) on the one hand, and Chesapeake Exploration Limited Partnership (an indirectly wholly owned subsidiary of Chesapeake Energy Corporation) on the other hand, executed effective November 4, 2005: (1) a Purchase and Sale Agreement and Exploration and Development Agreement (hereinafter, Purchase and Sale Agreement ); and (2) an Exploration and Development Agreement. Also effective November 4, 2005, Gastar and Chesapeake Energy Corporation executed: (1) a Common Share Purchase Agreement; and (2) a Registration Rights Agreement. 14. The Purchase and Sale Agreement, Exploration and Development Agreement, Common Share Purchase Agreement, and Registration Rights Agreement (collectively, the Related Agreements ) were interdependent and essential parts of an integrated transaction. The Purchase and Sale Agreement provides that the consideration attributable to the matters covered in the Related Agreements was not derived separately, but was negotiated as a whole, and that the integrated transaction contemplated by the Related Agreements would not be consummated without each of the matters covered by 5

6 Case 4:12-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/01/12 Page 6 of 16 the Related Agreements being completed. The Related Agreements were, in the words of Mr. Porter, all one transaction, all one lump sum. 15. When the Related Agreements were executed, Chesapeake, Gastar and First Source were aware that a third party, Navasota Resources, L.P. ( Navasota ), had made a claim to a right of first refusal on the Hilltop Prospect interests that Gastar/First Source was selling to Chesapeake. However, based on considerable diligence, Chesapeake, Gastar and First Source all believed Gastar/First Source had certain ownership rights related to the Hilltop Prospect properties, including the right to convey to Chesapeake those interests that were the subject of the letter of intent, despite Navasota s claim. Thus, the parties closed the integrated transaction contemplated by the Related Agreements, and Chesapeake paid: (1) $5,626,811 to Gastar/First Source for the Hilltop Prospect properties, and (2) $76,031,654 to Gastar for the purchase of 27,151,641 shares of Gastar common stock. 16. The parties agreed that Navasota s claim would not constitute a title defect for the purpose of this transaction. The parties also agreed that Chesapeake would convey the leasehold interests to Navasota in the event same was required by a final judgment or settlement of a lawsuit Navasota had filed. However, Chesapeake did not agree to waive its rights to rescind the transaction or otherwise seek restitution in such an event. 17. After closing on the Hilltop Prospect interests, the interests were operated under a Joint Operating Agreement that designated First Source as operator and gave First Source authority over drilling and other activities in the Hilltop Prospect. 6

7 Case 4:12-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/01/12 Page 7 of 16 Notwithstanding other provisions of the Joint Operating Agreement, the Purchase and Sale and Agreement provided that Chesapeake was required to participate to casing point in the first six (6) wells proposed by Gastar/First Source (the Obligatory Wells ), and would carry Gastar/First Source on those wells by bearing 44.44% (rather than its 33.33% proportionate share) of the costs through casing point on the Obligatory Wells. As a result, Chesapeake paid Gastar/First Source $20,465,841 for the cost of drilling the Obligatory Wells through casing point. 18. After drilling the six (6) Obligatory Wells to casing point, Gastar/First Source decided to complete these wells, with Chesapeake being assessed its proportionate share of the costs. Gastar/First Source then proposed thirteen (13) additional wells, twelve (12) of which were drilled and completed (the Subsequent Wells ). As a result of these operations proposed by Gastar/First Source, between January 2006 and December 2008 Chesapeake paid the following amounts to Gastar/First Source: (1) $3,803,397 to obtain extensions and renewals of oil and gas leases on the Hilltop Prospect properties; and (2) $26,806,068 for completing and operating the Obligatory Wells and for drilling, completing and operating the Subsequent Wells (net of credit for certain revenues applied against certain expenses). After these wells went into production, Chesapeake received $5,849,297 in revenue payments from Gastar/First Source for gas sold from the Obligatory Wells and the Subsequent Wells. 19. While these wells were being drilled, Navasota was pursuing a lawsuit against Gastar/First Source and Chesapeake in which it claimed that the Hilltop Prospect interests that Gastar/First Source sold to Chesapeake should have been sold to Navasota. 7

8 Case 4:12-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/01/12 Page 8 of 16 Navasota s claims were dismissed by the district court in Leon County. But, on January 9, 2008, the Texas court of appeals held that Navasota had validly accepted a right of first refusal on the Hilltop Prospect interests that Gastar/First Source sold to Chesapeake, and the court ordered that the interests be sold to Navasota instead. 20. Neither Gastar, First Source, nor Chesapeake agreed with the court of appeals decision. All parties continued to believe Gastar had all rights of ownership in the Hilltop Prospect leasehold interests at the time Gastar conveyed 1/3 of those interests to Chesapeake, and the parties petitioned for review of the court of appeals decision. 21. While their petitions for review were pending, Chesapeake requested that Gastar/First Source seek a commitment from Navasota that Navasota would pay for any proposed operations in the Hilltop Prospect in the event that Chesapeake, Gastar and First Source were mistaken as to Gastar/First Source s ownership rights at the time Gastar/First Source conveyed the now-disputed interests to Chesapeake. Despite not seeking such a commitment from Navasota, Gastar/First Source continued to propose operations in the Hilltop Prospect, and deducted the costs associated with the disputed 1/3 working interest from the proceeds of gas sales from the wells that Chesapeake had already paid for. 22. On January 9, 2009, the Texas Supreme Court denied the parties petition for review of the court of appeals decision, and on April 17, 2009, a motion for rehearing was denied. Therefore, in accordance with the court of appeals mandate, Chesapeake was required to convey to Navasota the Hilltop Prospect interests it received from Gastar/First Source. In return, Chesapeake received from Navasota payments of 8

9 Case 4:12-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/01/12 Page 9 of 16 only $5,009,932 (the cost of the Hilltop Prospect properties at $700 per acre) and $20,465,841 (44.44% of the cost of drilling the Obligatory Wells through casing point), but no compensation for the $26,806,068 in costs Chesapeake paid related to the completion and operation of the Obligatory Wells or the drilling, completion, and operation of the Subsequent Wells, nor the $3,803,397 Chesapeake paid Gastar/First Source to obtain extensions and renewals of oil and gas leases on the Hilltop Prospect properties. 23. On August 28, 2009, following the conveyance of the Hilltop Prospect properties to Navasota, Chesapeake served a written notice of rescission on Gastar and First Source, offering to restore Gastar and First Source to status quo ante and to restore to Gastar and First Source the consideration it received from the transaction. Gastar and First Source refused, and continue to refuse, to comply with Chesapeake s notice of rescission After the conveyance of the Hilltop Prospect properties to Navasota, Gastar/First Source failed to require Navasota to elect-in to the wells that had been drilled on the properties that had been partially paid for by Chesapeake. Had Gastar/First Source done so, under the provisions of the Joint Operating Agreement, Navasota would have either been required to reimburse Chesapeake for its costs in the wells (if Navasota chose to elect-in) or Gastar/First Source could have continued to pay the revenue from gas sales from these wells to Chesapeake until payout (if Navasota chose not to elect-in). 1 As a result of Gastar s and First Source s refusal to rescind the agreements, Chesapeake filed a cross-claim against Gastar in a pending lawsuit brought by Navasota against Chesapeake and Gastar/First Source in Leon County regarding the same transaction at issue here. On March 21, 2011, Chesapeake non-suited its cross-claim against Gastar/First Source subject to a tolling agreement between Chesapeake and Gastar/First Source. 9

10 Case 4:12-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/01/12 Page 10 of Since Chesapeake s conveyance of the Hilltop Prospect interests to Navasota, Chesapeake has not received any proceeds from the sale of gas from the nineteen (19) wells it paid for. This, despite the fact that these wells would not have been drilled but-for Chesapeake s $68,105,777 direct investment in these wells, and the $76,031,654 Chesapeake provided Gastar in exchange for Gastar common stock. As of today, Gastar/First Source continues to enjoy the financial benefits of these wells, to the exclusion of Chesapeake, and Gastar/First Source has not suffered any damage on account of the parties mutual mistake and/or the court of appeals mandate. In contrast, Chesapeake has been left with almost $25 million in unreimbursed well and lease costs, and no right to any of the future production from the nineteen (19) wells it paid for. herein. Cause of Action: Rescission and Restitution Based on Mutual Mistake and Failure of Consideration 26. Chesapeake adopts and re-alleges each preceding paragraph as if set forth 27. Chesapeake, Gastar and First Source were mutually mistaken as to Gastar s ownership rights with respect to the interests that were the subject of the letter of intent, and that Gastar/First Source had the right to convey those interests to Chesapeake on November 4, This mutual mistake concerned the parties antecedent legal rights with respect to the Hilltop Prospect properties, which under Texas law is a mistake of fact. 28. This mistake occurred despite the exercise of ordinary care by Chesapeake. 10

11 Case 4:12-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/01/12 Page 11 of This mutual mistake had a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances under the Related Agreements and the Joint Operating Agreement, in that the object of these agreements was the joint development and production of natural gas and other minerals from the Hilltop Prospect properties. As the parties had expressly recognized, none of the Related Agreements, nor the Joint Operating Agreement, would have been executed if 1/3 of Gastar s interests in the Hilltop Prospect was not conveyed to Chesapeake. 30. As a direct result of this mutual mistake, Chesapeake paid the following amounts under the Related Agreements and the Joint Operating Agreement: (1) $5,626,811 to Gastar/First Source for 1/3 of Gastar s interest in the Hilltop Prospect properties; (2) $76,031,654 to Gastar for 27,151,641 shares of Gastar common stock; (3) $20,465,841 to Gastar/First Source for the cost of drilling the Obligatory Wells; (4) $3,807,397 to Gastar/First Source to obtain extensions and renewals of oil and gas leases on the Hilltop Prospect properties; and (5) $26,806,068 (net) to Gastar/First Source for completing and operating the Obligatory Wells and drilling, completing and operating the Subsequent Wells. 31. Because the object of the Related Agreements and the Joint Operating Agreement was the joint development and production of natural gas and other minerals from the Hilltop Prospect properties, and because the parties expressly agreed that the consideration provided under any one of the agreements provided the consideration for all agreements, the consideration for the Related Agreements and Joint Operating failed on account of Gastar s inability to convey the 1/3 interest in the Hilltop Prospect 11

12 Case 4:12-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/01/12 Page 12 of 16 properties to Chesapeake for the expected duration of those agreements. This failure was so complete that, had it been known, the parties would not have entered into the Related Agreements and Joint Operating Agreement. 32. Chesapeake seeks rescission of the Related Agreements and the Joint Operating Agreement based on this mutual mistake and failure of consideration, and is entitled to restitution of the amounts that it paid Gastar/First Source pursuant to these agreements, plus interest. Chesapeake has no other adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable harm if these agreements are not rescinded and if the consideration it paid pursuant to these agreements is not returned. 33. Chesapeake offers to restore Gastar/First Source to status quo ante and to restore to Gastar/First Source the following consideration it received with respect to the Related Agreements and the Joint Operating Agreement: (1) $5,009,932 Chesapeake received from Navasota as payment for the Hilltop Prospect properties; (2) $20,465,841 Chesapeake received from Navasota as payment for the cost of drilling the Obligatory Wells; (3) 27,151,641 shares of Gastar common stock Chesapeake received from Gastar 2 ; and (4) $5,849,297 in revenue payments Chesapeake received from Gastar/First Source for gas sold from the Obligatory Wells and the Subsequent Wells. Cause of Action: Restitution Based on Unjust Enrichment 34. Chesapeake adopts and re-alleges each preceding paragraph as if set forth herein. 2 On August 3, 2009, Gastar common stock underwent a 1:5 reverse stock split. As a result of this reverse split, the 27,151,641 shares of Gastar stock that Chesapeake purchased were converted into 5,430,329 shares. 12

13 Case 4:12-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/01/12 Page 13 of Chesapeake s continued ownership of an interest in the Hilltop Prospect was the primary object of the Joint Operating Agreement and the Related Agreements. In pursuit of this objective, Chesapeake paid Gastar/First Source the aforementioned $132,737,771 under the Related Agreements and the Joint Operating Agreement. Gastar/First Source used these funds to drill wells and renew/extend leases in the Hilltop Prospect. In return, Chesapeake was to receive its share of the benefits from such wells and leases so long as the Hilltop Prospect continued to produce. 36. However, complete performance of the Joint Operating Agreement and the Related Agreements with respect to Chesapeake s interest in the Hilltop Prospect was impossible, because Chesapeake was required by the court of appeals mandate to convey its interest in the Hilltop Prospect properties to Navasota before Chesapeake was able to realize the benefits it was entitled to under the Joint Operating Agreement and Related Agreements. 37. Additionally, because the object of the Related Agreements and the Joint Operating Agreement was the joint development and production of natural gas and other minerals from the Hilltop Prospect properties, Chesapeake s mandated conveyance frustrated the purpose of those agreements and/or made it impractical for the parties to perform the agreements. 38. As a result, Gastar/First Source has been unjustly enriched at the expense of Chesapeake. Gastar/First Source received over $132 million from Chesapeake to drill wells and renew/extend leases in the Hilltop Prospect. Gastar/First Source has received and continues to receive the benefits of these wells and leases to the exclusion of 13

14 Case 4:12-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/01/12 Page 14 of 16 Chesapeake. In contrast, Chesapeake has received only a portion of the benefits it was promised under the agreements. 39. Additionally, Gastar/First Source s decision to not seek a commitment from Navasota that Navasota would pay for wells proposed by Gastar in the event Navasota prevailed in its lawsuit, nor to require that Navasota elect-in to the wells drilled and paid for by Chesapeake after Navasota was conveyed the leasehold interest, deprived Chesapeake of the opportunity to recoup the costs of these wells. As a result, Gastar/First Source has enjoyed the benefit of its 2/3 working interest in these wells that were funded in part by Chesapeake, while shifting the risk of Navasota prevailing in its lawsuit entirely onto Chesapeake. 40. Under Texas law, restitution is appropriate where, as here, the parties agreement is thwarted by mutual mistake or failure of consideration, rendered impossible or impracticable to perform, and/or frustrated. Therefore, Chesapeake seeks restitution of the amounts it paid to Gastar/First Source under the Joint Operating Agreement and the Related Agreements, less the benefits it received under these agreements as of the date Chesapeake was compelled to convey its interest in the Hilltop Prospect to Navasota. Prayer 41. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that they be awarded: A. Rescission of the Related Agreements and the Joint Operating Agreement, including: 1. Restoration by Chesapeake to Gastar/First Source of: (1) the $5,009,932 Chesapeake received from Navasota as payment for the Hilltop Prospect properties; (2) the $20,465,841 Chesapeake received from Navasota as payment for the cost 14

15 Case 4:12-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/01/12 Page 15 of 16 of drilling the Obligatory Wells; (3) the 27,151,641 shares of Gastar common stock Chesapeake received from Gastar (now 5,430,329 shares after a 1:5 reverse stock split); and (4) the $5,849,297 in revenue payments Chesapeake received from Gastar/First Source for gas sold from the Obligatory Wells and the Subsequent Wells; 2. Restitution by Gastar/First Source to Chesapeake of: (1) the $5,626,811 Chesapeake paid to Gastar/First Source for the Hilltop Prospect properties; (2) the $76,031,654 Chesapeake paid Gastar for the 27,151,641 shares of Gastar common stock; (3) the $20,465,841 Chesapeake paid to Gastar/First Source for the cost of drilling the Obligatory Wells; (4) the $3,807,397 Chesapeake paid to Gastar/First Source to obtain extensions and renewals of oil and gas leases on the Hilltop Prospect properties pursuant; and (5) the $26,806,068 Chesapeake paid to Gastar/First Source for completing and operating the Obligatory Wells and drilling, completing and operating the Subsequent Wells; B. In the alternative, restitution to Chesapeake under the theory of unjust enrichment of the benefits conferred by Chesapeake upon Gastar/First Source under the Joint Operating Agreement and the Related Agreements, in the amounts summarized in subparagraph A above; C. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; D. Costs, attorneys fees, and expenses to the fullest extent permitted by law; and E. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. 15

16 Case 4:12-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/01/12 Page 16 of 16 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/jesse R. Pierce Jesse R. Pierce State Bar No Federal ID No. 472 PIERCE & O NEILL, LLP 4203 Montrose Boulevard Houston, Texas (713) Direct (713) Main (713) Fax Attorney in Charge for Plaintiffs Chesapeake Exploration L.L.C and Chesapeake Energy Corporation OF COUNSEL: Scott R. Humphrey Texas Bar No Federal ID No PIERCE & O NEILL, LLP 4203 Montrose Boulevard Houston, Texas (713) Direct (713) Main (713) Fax Brian J. Cathey Texas Bar No Federal ID No PIERCE & O NEILL, LLP 4203 Montrose Boulevard Houston, Texas (713) Direct (713) Main (713) Fax 16

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2014 INDEX NO. 650177/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2014

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2014 INDEX NO. 650177/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2014 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2014 INDEX NO. 650177/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF 01/17/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More information

Case 2:10-cv-01224-JCM-LRL Document 1 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:10-cv-01224-JCM-LRL Document 1 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 8 Case :0-cv-0-JCM-LRL Document Filed 0//0 Page of Reno, NV ( -00 Fax ( 0-0 0 Mark R. Thierman, NV# laborlawyer@pacbell.net THIERMAN LAW FIRM, P.C. Reno, Nevada Tel: ( -00 Fax: ( 0-0 David R. Markham, CAL#

More information

NOTICE OF PROPOSED FINAL SETTLEMENT OF LAWSUIT AND PLANNED SALE OF PARTNERSHIP ASSETS

NOTICE OF PROPOSED FINAL SETTLEMENT OF LAWSUIT AND PLANNED SALE OF PARTNERSHIP ASSETS NOTICE OF PROPOSED FINAL SETTLEMENT OF LAWSUIT AND PLANNED SALE OF PARTNERSHIP ASSETS Please read this Notice carefully. This Notice is solely to inform all current Unit Holders of the Mesa Offshore Trust

More information

Case 1:05-cv-03493-JGK Document 1 Filed 04/04/05 Page 1 of 6. Plaintiff, : Civ. No. 05cv3493

Case 1:05-cv-03493-JGK Document 1 Filed 04/04/05 Page 1 of 6. Plaintiff, : Civ. No. 05cv3493 Case 1:05-cv-03493-JGK Document 1 Filed 04/04/05 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X ALEJANDRO

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE COMMSCOPE, INC. OF NORTH CAROLINA and ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., v. Plaintiffs, CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS WIRELESS LTD., Defendant.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION FREDERICK FREEMAN, Plaintiff, CASE NO. v. MONARCH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; A foreign corporation. Defendant. / COMPLAINT FOR DISABILITY

More information

2:14-cv-03460-RMG Date Filed 08/27/14 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 8

2:14-cv-03460-RMG Date Filed 08/27/14 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 8 2:14-cv-03460-RMG Date Filed 08/27/14 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION DANIEL CHRISTOPHER DRUMMOND AND PAULANN PERRY,

More information

COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND. of police reports in bad faith. Plaintiff claims that Defendants acted willfully, wantonly and in

COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND. of police reports in bad faith. Plaintiff claims that Defendants acted willfully, wantonly and in Weld County, Colorado, District Court, 901 9 th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 970.351.7300 Plaintiff: vs. Defendants: JENNIFER BELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, BRADLEY PETROLEUM,

More information

INTRODUCTION. 1. The State of Maine and Securities Administrator (hereinafter collectively

INTRODUCTION. 1. The State of Maine and Securities Administrator (hereinafter collectively STATE OF MAINE YORK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-05- STATE OF MAINE and SECURITIES ADMINISTRATOR, Plaintiffs, v. COMPLAINT LORI M. HEMINGS, Defendant. INTRODUCTION 1. The State of Maine

More information

CAUSE NO. DC-12-07825

CAUSE 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 information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

UNITED 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 information

No. Plaintiff Kelvin Bledsoe ( Plaintiff ), by his undersigned counsel, brings claims

No. 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 information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. Plaintiffs, C. A. NO. VS.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. Plaintiffs, C. A. NO. VS. Case 4:12-cv-02469 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 08/17/12 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA;

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JPM NETWORKS, LLC, ) d/b/a KWIKBOOST ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) 3:14-cv-1507 JCM FIRST VENTURE, LLC )

More information

Case 1:15-cv-01037-RP Document 1 Filed 11/16/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Case 1:15-cv-01037-RP Document 1 Filed 11/16/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION Case 1:15-cv-01037-RP Document 1 Filed 11/16/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION Nina Louden and Johanna Condley, on behalf of themselves and all other

More information

* Each Will Comply With LR IA 10 2 Within 45 days Attorneys for Plaintiff, Goldman, Sachs & Co.

* Each Will Comply With LR IA 10 2 Within 45 days Attorneys for Plaintiff, Goldman, Sachs & Co. Case :-cv-00-lrh -WGC Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Stanley W. Parry Esq. Nevada Bar No. Jon T. Pearson, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 0 BALLARD SPAHR LLP 00 North City Parkway, Suite 0 Las Vegas, NV 0 Telephone:

More information

IN 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 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 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 information

CLIENT INFORMATION: GUIDELINES ON ADMINISTRATION & BILLING

CLIENT INFORMATION: GUIDELINES ON ADMINISTRATION & BILLING CLIENT INFORMATION: GUIDELINES ON ADMINISTRATION & BILLING As updated from time-to-time for billing rates and responsible attorney and, following actual notice to the client. This agreement forms the basis

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA BROWARD DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No.: COMPLAINT

UNITED 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 information

Case 4:08-cv-00142-MHS-ALM Document 58 Filed 06/30/2009 Page 1 of 9

Case 4:08-cv-00142-MHS-ALM Document 58 Filed 06/30/2009 Page 1 of 9 Case 4:08-cv-00142-MHS-ALM Document 58 Filed 06/30/2009 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Case No. 4:08-CV-142

More information

Plaintiff Carol Parker ( Plaintiff ), residing at 32 Coleman Way, Jackson, NJ 08527, by her undersigned counsel, alleges the following upon personal

Plaintiff 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 information

BROKER SALESPERSON INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT. THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of, 20, between ( Broker ) and ( Salesperson ).

BROKER SALESPERSON INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT. THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of, 20, between ( Broker ) and ( Salesperson ). BROKER SALESPERSON INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of, 20, between ( Broker ) and ( Salesperson ). RECITALS: Broker is engaged in business as a duly licensed real

More information

Case 2:13-cv-00279-TOR Document 1 Filed 07/30/13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Case 2:13-cv-00279-TOR Document 1 Filed 07/30/13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 0 JONATHAN E. NUECHTERLEIN General Counsel ROBERT J. SCHROEDER Regional Director NADINE SAMTER, WA Bar # JENNIFER LARABEE, CA Bar # nd Ave., Suite Seattle, WA ( 0- (Samter; ( 0-0 (Larabee Email: nsamter@ftc.gov;

More information

Case 2:10-cv-02847-IPJ Document 292 Filed 05/27/15 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 2:10-cv-02847-IPJ Document 292 Filed 05/27/15 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION Case 2:10-cv-02847-IPJ Document 292 Filed 05/27/15 Page 1 of 12 FILED 2015 May-27 AM 10:35 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

More information

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND CONSENT ORDER OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND CONSENT ORDER OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND CONSENT ORDER OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC WHEREAS, Ocwen Financial Corporation is a publicly traded Florida corporation headquartered in Atlanta,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DEFENDANT S ANSWER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DEFENDANT S ANSWER Case 1:14-cv-05919-JEI-KMW Document 19 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 84 Frank L. Corrado, Esquire Attorney ID No. 022221983 BARRY, CORRADO & GRASSI, PC 2700 Pacific Avenue Wildwood, NJ 08260 (609)

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

IN 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 information

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. of America, acting through the United States Department of Justice and the United States

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. of America, acting through the United States Department of Justice and the United States SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement (Agreement) is entered into among the United States of America, acting through the United States Department of Justice and the United States Attorney s Office

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION DEFENDANT S COUNTERCLAIM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION DEFENDANT S COUNTERCLAIM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE ) COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 3:10-cv-00743 ) Judge Campbell v. ) Magistrate

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION. v. Case No. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION. v. Case No. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION ALLURE ENERGY, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. Case No. NEST LABS, INC., a Delaware corporation, GREEN

More information

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. Plaintiffs, VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INSPECTION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. Plaintiffs, VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INSPECTION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MALCOLM CORK, LISMORE PARTNERS LLC, DR. JOHN HAUGHTON, MICHAEL CARR, PAUL GRANDE, ATHANASIOS TOMARAS, JONATHAN WATERS, GLENN CARTER, AIRDRIE PARTNERS I

More information

CIVIL DICTRICT COURT PARISH OF ORLEANS STATE OF LOUISIANA

CIVIL DICTRICT COURT PARISH OF ORLEANS STATE OF LOUISIANA CIVIL DICTRICT COURT PARISH OF ORLEANS STATE OF LOUISIANA LESTER ANSARDI, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED SUIT NO. PLAINTIFF VERSUS UNITED STATES MARITIME SERVICES, INC., UNITED

More information

Employee Settlement and Release Agreement.

Employee Settlement and Release Agreement. Form: Description: Release: No Disparagement: References: Review by Counsel: Employee Settlement and Release Agreement. This is a sample form agreement for the settlement of any claims by an employee against

More information

Case 3:08-cv-00920-JAP-JJH Document 1 Filed 02/20/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:08-cv-00920-JAP-JJH Document 1 Filed 02/20/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 3:08-cv-00920-JAP-JJH Document 1 Filed 02/20/2008 Page 1 of 13 Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 236 Tillou Road South Orange, NJ 07079 Telephone: (973 313-1887 Fax: (973 833-0399 lrosen@rosenlegal.com

More information

Case 4:15-cv-00438-A Document 1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Case 4:15-cv-00438-A Document 1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Case 4:15-cv-00438-A Document 1 Filed 06/10/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ) COMMISSION ) ) PLAINTIFF ) ) v. ) Civil Action

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION SMILEBOND SYSTEMS LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company, v. Plaintiff, GC AMERICA INC. an Illinois Corporation,

More information

Case 2:06-cv-15766-JF-SDP Document 69 Filed 02/25/2008 Page 1 of 15

Case 2:06-cv-15766-JF-SDP Document 69 Filed 02/25/2008 Page 1 of 15 Case 2:06-cv-15766-JF-SDP Document 69 Filed 02/25/2008 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. MAZZONI

More information

Case 3:14-cv-00137-AC Document 10 Filed 03/26/14 Page 1 of 14 Page ID#: 43

Case 3:14-cv-00137-AC Document 10 Filed 03/26/14 Page 1 of 14 Page ID#: 43 Case 3:14-cv-00137-AC Document 10 Filed 03/26/14 Page 1 of 14 Page ID#: 43 Calvin L. Keith, OSB No. 814368 CKeith@perkinscoie.com Sarah J. Crooks, OSB No. 971512 SCrooks@perkinscoie.com PERKINS COIE LLP

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE No. 09-CV-01084-JCC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE No. 09-CV-01084-JCC THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR JUSTIN GAWRONSKI and A. BRUGUIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT

More information

IN 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 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 information

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

FIRST 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 information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 4:10-cv-00706 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/04/10 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, v. Plaintiff,

More information

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. This Settlement Agreement ( Agreement ) is entered into among the United

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. This Settlement Agreement ( Agreement ) is entered into among the United AMR 24B - 00001 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement ( Agreement ) is entered into among the United States of America, acting through the United States Attorney s Office for the District of Arizona

More information

MODULAR HOME PURCHASE & CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT

MODULAR HOME PURCHASE & CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT This document has been prepared as an aid to retailers selling a modular home for placement on the customer s land. We would like to remind you this is a general form and will need to be amended to fit

More information

Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION. MARIA GODINEZ, an individual,

Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION. MARIA GODINEZ, an individual, 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 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

More information

CUSTOMER LIST PURCHASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN RICHARD PENNER SELLER. and S&W SEED COMPANY BUYER

CUSTOMER LIST PURCHASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN RICHARD PENNER SELLER. and S&W SEED COMPANY BUYER EXHIBIT 10.1 CUSTOMER LIST PURCHASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN RICHARD PENNER as SELLER and S&W SEED COMPANY as BUYER CUSTOMER LIST PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS CUSTOMER LIST PURCHASE AGREEMENT ( Agreement )

More information

Case 2:14-cv-06333-JS-ARL Document 1 Filed 10/28/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 131. : : - against - : : : Defendant.

Case 2:14-cv-06333-JS-ARL Document 1 Filed 10/28/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 131. : : - against - : : : Defendant. Case 214-cv-06333-JS-ARL Document 1 Filed 10/28/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID # 131 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------- x MONTAJ, INC., Plaintiff,

More information

4:15-cv-00432-RBH Date Filed 01/29/15 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 10

4:15-cv-00432-RBH Date Filed 01/29/15 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 10 4:15-cv-00432-RBH Date Filed 01/29/15 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Ryan Michael Stinnett, on behalf of himself CASE

More information

IN 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 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 information

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ( Agreement ) is made and entered into by and between Cheryl Coryea ( Coryea or Plaintiff ), and Rochester Independent School District

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 JANET M. HEROLD Regional Solicitor IAN H. ELIASOPH (CSBN Counsel for ERISA GRACE A. KIM, Trial Attorney (CSBN Office of the Solicitor United States Department

More information

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Division A. Opinion by JUDGE NIETO. Casebolt and Dailey, JJ., concur

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Division A. Opinion by JUDGE NIETO. Casebolt and Dailey, JJ., concur COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS February 15, 2001 Court of Appeals No. 98CA1099 El Paso County District Court No. 96CV2233 Honorable Theresa M. Cisneros, Judge Carol Koscove, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Bolte,

More information

Case 1:12-cv-01203-VEC Document 206 Filed 10/15/15 Page 1 of 10 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #:

Case 1:12-cv-01203-VEC Document 206 Filed 10/15/15 Page 1 of 10 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: Case 1:12-cv-01203-VEC Document 206 Filed 10/15/15 Page 1 of 10 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 10/15/2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CITY OF

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM DIVISION ELECTRONICALLY FILED 5/18/2012 2:30 PM CV-2012-901583.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA ANNE-MARIE ADAMS, CLERK IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM DIVISION ZACHARY

More information

Case 2:02-cv-00950-TS Document 602 Filed 06/19/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 2:02-cv-00950-TS Document 602 Filed 06/19/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 2:02-cv-00950-TS Document 602 Filed 06/19/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC.,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. Defendants. Case 1:13-cv-01817-WSD Document 1 Filed 05/30/13 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

More information

~INAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

~INAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE Case 1:12-cv-06677-JSR Document 110 Filed 06/29/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EDWARD ZYBURO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, NCSPLUS

More information

Case 3:11-cv-00545-RCJ-WGC Document 96 Filed 12/18/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Case 3:11-cv-00545-RCJ-WGC Document 96 Filed 12/18/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Case 3:11-cv-00545-RCJ-WGC Document 96 Filed 12/18/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA HOWARD L. HOWELL, Lead Plaintiff, ELLISA PANCOE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. ) CASE NO. ATTORNEY GENERAL ) MICHAEL DEWINE ) JUDGE 30 E. Broad St., 14 th Floor ) Columbus, Ohio 43215 ) ) PLAINTIFF, ) ) V.

More information

Case 1:14-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Case 1:14-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION Case 1:14-cv-00652 Document 1 Filed 07/14/14 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION * FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, * * Civil Case No. Plaintiff, * * v.

More information

EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT

EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT Case 12-30885-hdh7 Doc 72 Filed 11/22/13 Entered 11/22/13 11:07:32 Page 15 of 27 EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT ALL PERSONS WHO PAID MONEY FOR A MEMBERSHIP IN LULLY S, INC. d/b/a THE RIGHT

More information

Case 3:14-cv-00929-AWT Document 1 Filed 06/26/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Case 3:14-cv-00929-AWT Document 1 Filed 06/26/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Case 3:14-cv-00929-AWT Document 1 Filed 06/26/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ZIPLINK, INC., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., JURY

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT I.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT I. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION JANICE LEE, ) ) Case No. Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) BETHESDA HOSPITAL, INC. ) ) Defendant. ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, v. Plaintiff, Case No. 2:14-cv-59 TIME WARNER CABLE INC., TIME WARNER CABLE ENTERPRISES LLC, TIME WARNER

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION Case 4:13-cv-00594 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/06/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Civ. No.: VERMA HOLDINGS,

More information

Case 1:13-cv-10524 Document 1 Filed 03/07/13 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 1:13-cv-10524 Document 1 Filed 03/07/13 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Case 1:13-cv-10524 Document 1 Filed 03/07/13 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Patricia Boudreau, Alex Gray, ) And Bobby Negron ) On Behalf of Themselves and All

More information

Case 1:07-cv-06912 Document 152 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-06912 Document 152 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 1 of 8 Case 1:07-cv-06912 Document 152 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY and ) CONTINENTAL INSURANCE

More information

Case 2:14-cv-00967 Document 1 Filed 07/01/14 Page 1 of 17

Case 2:14-cv-00967 Document 1 Filed 07/01/14 Page 1 of 17 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 DAVID C. SHONKA Acting General Counsel BRIAN S. SHULL JANE M. RICCI bshull@ftc.gov, jricci@ftc.gov, CC-0 Washington, DC 0 P: () -, () - F: () - Attorneys for

More information

Case 3:15-cv-00592-LAB-BLM Document 1 Filed 03/16/15 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:15-cv-00592-LAB-BLM Document 1 Filed 03/16/15 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-00-lab-blm Document Filed 0// Page of 0 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. Attorney General VANITA GUPTA Acting Assistant Attorney General STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section ELIZABETH

More information

: : : : : : : : Plaintiffs, HOLLY SCHEPISI, NEIL McPHERSON, KEVIN DRAGAN, and

: : : : : : : : Plaintiffs, HOLLY SCHEPISI, NEIL McPHERSON, KEVIN DRAGAN, and SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------x HOLLY SCHEPISI, NEIL McPHERSON, KEVIN DRAGAN, BRETT HICKEY, AEGIS ALABAMA

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA PHILIP M. BALLIF Nevada Bar # 2650 DURHAM, JONES & PINEGAR. P.C. 10785 W. Twain Avenue, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702 870-6060 Facsimile: (702 870-6090 Email: pballif@djplaw.com JOHN

More information

Case 2:15-cv-02235-SHL-dkv Document 1 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Case 2:15-cv-02235-SHL-dkv Document 1 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE Case 2:15-cv-02235-SHL-dkv Document 1 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE FIRST HORIZON NATIONAL ) CORPORATION and ) FIRST TENNESSEE

More information

CAUSE NO. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION. Greg Abbott, and complains of OLD UNITED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ( Defendant ), and I.

CAUSE 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 information

JOHN MURRAY ( Murray ), for his Complaint in this action against Defendant, Crystex Composites LLC ( Crystex ), alleges as follows:

JOHN MURRAY ( Murray ), for his Complaint in this action against Defendant, Crystex Composites LLC ( Crystex ), alleges as follows: Case 2:08-cv-02672-WHW-CCC Document 1 Filed 05/29/08 Page 1 of 10 ROBERT J. BASIL, ESQ. (RB3410) Collier & Basil, P.C. 1270 Broadway, Suite 305 New York, NY 10001 (917) 512-3066 (831) 536-1075 (fax) Attorneys

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SOMEWHERE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

SUPERIOR 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 information

2 of 8 10/18/2012 1:12 PM

2 of 8 10/18/2012 1:12 PM 2 of 8 10/18/2012 1:12 PM Exhibit 10.11 EXECUTION COPY SALARIED EMPLOYEE LIABILITIES ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT This SALARIED EMPLOYEE LIABILITIES ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT ( Agreement ) is made on the 22nd day of

More information

Courtroom: 19 FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Courtroom: 19 FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO City and County Building, Room 256 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 Plaintiff: RAYMOND AND SALLY MILLER, ET AL., on behalf of themselves and all

More information

Case 15-02065 Doc 1 Filed 04/07/15 Entered 04/07/15 11:42:31 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 13

Case 15-02065 Doc 1 Filed 04/07/15 Entered 04/07/15 11:42:31 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 13 Document Page 1 of 13 George Hoffman (10005) Benjamin J. Kotter (9592) Adam H. Reiser (13339) COHNE KINGHORN, P.C. 111 East Broadway, 11 th Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 363-4300 Facsimile:

More information

Case 1:09-cv-03701-JPO-JCF Document 362 Filed 08/04/15 Page 1 of 8 : : : : : : EXHIBIT A

Case 1:09-cv-03701-JPO-JCF Document 362 Filed 08/04/15 Page 1 of 8 : : : : : : EXHIBIT A Case 109-cv-03701-JPO-JCF Document 362 Filed 08/04/15 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x FORT WORTH EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly

More information

Case3:15-cv-03986-JCS Document1 Filed09/01/15 Page1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case3:15-cv-03986-JCS Document1 Filed09/01/15 Page1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case:-cv-0-JCS Document Filed0/0/ Page of KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP Karl S. Kronenberger (Bar No. ) Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld (Bar No. ) Ansel J. Halliburton (Bar No. 0) 0 Post Street, Suite 0 San Francisco,

More information

ATTORNEY CONSULTATION AND FEE CONTRACT FOR CONTINGENCY CASES

ATTORNEY CONSULTATION AND FEE CONTRACT FOR CONTINGENCY CASES 109 N. Palafox Street Telephone (850) 434-8904 Pensacola, Florida 32502 Fax (850) 434-8922 ATTORNEY CONSULTATION AND FEE CONTRACT FOR CONTINGENCY CASES THIS FEE CONTRACT FOR CONTINGENCY CASES ("Contract")

More information

Case 2:11-cv-10174-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 01/13/11 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 2:11-cv-10174-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 01/13/11 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Case 2:11-cv-10174-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 01/13/11 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOSHUA JOHNSON, ex rel. PAULA JOHNSON, on behalf of themselves

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT THE PARTIES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT THE PARTIES IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE AEROSCOUT, LTD. and AEROSCOUT, INC., v. CENTRAK INC., Plaintiffs, Defendant. C.A. No. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs AeroScout,

More information

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. This Settlement Agreement ( Agreement ) is entered into among the United

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. This Settlement Agreement ( Agreement ) is entered into among the United SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement ( Agreement ) is entered into among the United States of America, acting through the United States Department of Justice and on behalf of the Department of

More information

Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY CENTRAL DISTRICT STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE

Attorney 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 information

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE. WHEREAS, Prince was employed as KSU s head football coach between December 5, 2005 and December 31, 2008; and

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE. WHEREAS, Prince was employed as KSU s head football coach between December 5, 2005 and December 31, 2008; and SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release ( Agreement ) is made and entered into this 6 th day of May, 2011, by and between Kansas State University ( KSU ) and

More information

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS AND JEFF SCHMIDT

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS AND JEFF SCHMIDT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS AND JEFF SCHMIDT THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ( Agreement ) is made and entered into as of February 20, 2006, by and between the American Institute

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA DOROTHY YOUNG SHELL CANADA LIMITED. Brought under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA DOROTHY YOUNG SHELL CANADA LIMITED. Brought under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA No. L021060 Vancouver Registry Between: And: DOROTHY YOUNG SHELL CANADA LIMITED Brought under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50 Plaintiff Defendant

More information

Case 2:15-cv-00782 Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 2:15-cv-00782 Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Case 2:15-cv-00782 Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA THOMAS MILTON BENSON, JR., in his capacity as GRANTOR OF THE RENEE BENSON 2009 IRREVOCABLE

More information

Case 6:12-cv-00799 Document 1 Filed 10/22/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1

Case 6:12-cv-00799 Document 1 Filed 10/22/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1 Case 6:12-cv-00799 Document 1 Filed 10/22/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC. Plaintiff, C.A. No.: v.

More information

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re: Polaroid Corporation, et al., Debtors. (includes: Polaroid Holding Company; Polaroid Consumer Electronics, LLC; Polaroid Capital, LLC; Polaroid

More information

Case 2:10-cv-03242-SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 2:10-cv-03242-SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Case 2:10-cv-03242-SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA KATHLEEN A. BRANDNER, individually, and CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT on behalf of

More information

Case 3:10-cv-01946-SRU Document 1 Filed 12/10/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Case 3:10-cv-01946-SRU Document 1 Filed 12/10/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Case 310-cv-01946-SRU Document 1 Filed 12/10/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY as successor to THE AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY CO.,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION. In Re: Bankruptcy No. 09-26549. (Chapter 11) Filed Electronically

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION. In Re: Bankruptcy No. 09-26549. (Chapter 11) Filed Electronically Document Page 1 of 16 Steven C. Tycksen, #3300 Chad Shattuck, #9345 TYCKSEN & SHATTUCK, L.C. 12401 South 450 East, Unit E1 Draper, Utah 84020 Telephone: 801-748-4081 Facsimile: 801-748-4087 steve@tyshlaw.com

More information

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Release No. 75362 / July 6, 2015 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 3-16675 In the Matter of Wisteria

More information

Case 1:14-cv-00266-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/26/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:14-cv-00266-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/26/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Case 1:14-cv-00266-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/26/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE RICHARD L. PONZIANI, v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: FORD MOTOR

More information

Internal Revenue Service

Internal Revenue Service Internal Revenue Service Number: 200924034 Release Date: 6/12/2009 Index Number: 468B.00-00, 468B.04-01, 468B.07-00, 461.00-00, 162.00-00, 172.00-00, 172.01-00, 172.01-05, 172.06-00 -----------------------

More information

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 SCHEDULE 13D. Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. LRR Energy, L.P.

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 SCHEDULE 13D. Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. LRR Energy, L.P. UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 SCHEDULE 13D Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 LRR Energy, L.P. (Name of Issuer) Common Units Representing Limited Partner

More information

Case 2:15-cv-03432-DDP-AGR Document 1 Filed 05/07/15 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:15-cv-03432-DDP-AGR Document 1 Filed 05/07/15 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0-ddp-agr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 Matthew T. Walsh, Esq. (Bar No. ) CARROLL, McNULTY & KULL LLC 00 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 00 Chicago, Illinois 00 Telephone: () 00-000 Facsimile:

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Case 1:15-cv-02184-ODE Document 1 Filed 06/17/15 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.

More information