[PDF] Top 20 Case 3:12-cv D Document 68 Filed 12/20/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID 664

... defenses include “‘allegations . . . that admit the allegations of the complaint but suggest some other reason why there is no right of recovery, and . . . that concern allegations outside of the plaintiff’s prima facie ... See full document

... Defendant is an insurance company that operates in New York. Defendant “customarily and regularly deploys” its sales representative employees, including plaintiffs, “to one of [its] fixed sites in order to enroll ... See full document

... Though an affirmative defense, express consent may be considered at the motion to dismiss stage in a TCPA case when the facts establishing the defense have been affirmatively pleaded in the complaint. See, e.g., ... See full document

... reduce its value to him[.]” See also Ohio Envtl. Dev. Ltd. P’ship v. Envirotest Sys. Corp., 478 F. Supp. 2d 963, 979 (N.D. Ohio 2007) (quoting the Supreme Court of Ohio for the proposition that “an assignment must not ... See full document

... 7. The Immigration Policy Center (“IPC”) publishes “Immigration Fact Checks” updating the public on the state of immigration law; detailed, research-based special reports on specific issues; and an editorial series, ... See full document

... 20. The Central Eligibility Unit is the unit within DCS that is charged with the responsibility of, among other things, determining, after negotiation, the amount of adoption assistance payment to be paid pursuant ... See full document

... 22. The national committees of political parties may not receive bequests exceeding the federal contribution limits applicable to individuals. In the event such bequests are nonetheless made, defendant FEC does not ... See full document

... 13. Microsoft divides its worldwide business operations into three geographic regions: (1) Europe, Middle-East & Africa (“EMEA”); (2) Asia-Pacific (“APAC”); and (3) the United States, Canada & Latin ... See full document

... interference without justification; 3) a reasonable likelihood that Plaintiff anticipated the interest would continue but for the interference; and 4) resulting damage. Plaintiff has alleged that he was forced to ... See full document

... There is not any method of service on OPEC that could be ordered by the Court pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3) 11 that would not cause serious offense to Austrian law by circumventing the requirement for express consent ... See full document

... Magistrate Judge Duncan issued an Order (Docket No. 11) dismissing the action. The Order noted that Coates’s amended complaint stated: “I plaintiff request that the [Court] do not allow both defendants to prolong this ... See full document

... Richmond hip hop radio stations 92.1 FM and 106.5 FM. RSHT’s advertising emphasizes that RSHT is located “on the bus line.” This is a euphemism that RSHT uses intentionally to portray [r] ... See full document

... unreasonably refuse to permit Plaintiff to receive the funds from the escrow account. 5.) However, Defendants assert that they may be entitled to a portion of the settlement proceeds. 12[r] ... See full document

... No. 1), the Court may consider these matters without converting the current Motion to a motion for summary ...infringement case when ruling on a motion to dismiss); Hart ... See full document

... 3. Having reviewed the proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement (Notice), the Court approves the Notice and directs the North Dakota Department of Human Services (Department) to mail, or cause to be mailed, the ... See full document

... 68. On the Application, Mavash Morady knowingly and intentionally misrepresented to Ohio National that (i) Robert Harris was “well-known” to her, (ii) Mavash Morady personally saw Robert Harris, and (iii) Robert ... See full document

... Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the Association, as the Court must, Evanston has demonstrated the First and Second Claims are related, given the plain and unambiguous language of the Policy’s clauses ... See full document

... In Count Two, Petitioner claims that his sentence was “double the mandatory minimum.” This is an argument made by Brockett on appeal and one for which he offers no support. See United States v. Brockett, 420 F. App’x ... See full document

... Unlike attorney-client privilege, there is a federal standard for the work product doctrine identified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which is a codification of the doctrine first articulated by the Supreme Court ... See full document

... There is a material fact issue as to whether any of Plaintiff’s damage occurred during the policy periods, as opposed to some time after 1993. (See Perrault Decl. ¶ 7 (Dkt. No. 18 at 3) (opining that the damage ... See full document