[PDF] Top 20 Case 2:14-cv MJP Document 13 Filed 07/16/14 Page 1 of 7

... Complaint. 13. Google denies the allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Amended ...Complaint. 14. Google denies the allegations of Paragraph 14 of the Amended ...Complaint. 16. In answer to ... See full document

... When interpreting a contract, a court should account for what an “objectively reasonable insured, reading the policy language, would expect to be covered.” Brazas Sporting Arms, Inc. v. Am. Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co., ... See full document

... 54. On information and belief, Attachmate hires employees assigned to “license compliance teams” who are compensated in part based on (1) the amount of money they convince customers to pay for purportedly ... See full document

... In addition, the courts are barred from entertaining suits that seek to restrain the assessment or collection of any tax. 26 U.S.C. § 7421. The Anit-Injunction Act withdraws jurisdiction from the state and federal courts ... See full document

... 12. On or about February 10, 2014, Plaintiff Jerry Courson was searching the Internet for help in finding an appropriate drug rehabilitation facility for his wife, Plaintiff Christy Courson. 13. During his search, ... See full document

... The Court finds the latter example unpersuasive. Plaintiffs allege Class Period sales of 2,382,465 shares between all three individual Defendants. This evidence does not support an inference of scienter. The proper ... See full document

... 16. Ryan explained that during that 90-day period an addict’s brain is in “frantic mode” as the addict’s brain is seeking drugs or alcohol. To describe an addict’s brain during this time, Ryan used the example of ... See full document

... 7. In furtherance of the 2004-2006 Examination and in accordance with 26 U.S.C. §§ 7602 and 6503(j), on October 30, 2014, Revenue Agent Odell issued an IRS designated summons to Microsoft. The summons directed ... See full document

... Plaintiff attempted over the next two days to speak with Dean Cring about this move; she was not available. Id. at ¶ 11. On December 7, 2011, Plaintiff “happened to see” Dave Denmat, Chair of the Materials ... See full document

... 7. There is good cause to believe that immediate and irreparable damage to this Court’s ability to grant effective final relief will result from the sale, transfer, or other disposition or concealment by ... See full document

... 56. As of the Effective Date, the Releasing Parties, each on behalf of himself or herself and on behalf of his or her respective heirs, assigns, beneficiaries, and successors, shall automatically be deemed to have fully ... See full document

... Davis testified that he explained to his seminar attendees that a life insurance policy is an asset that can be sold, and the primary reason people chose to participate in the program he and Paul Morady devised was to ... See full document

... (Def. Motion App., Exhs. 1-A, 2-A, & 3-A at 1 [#22], filed August 12, 2013.) In 2012, each of the named plaintiffs executed a second arbitration agreement identical to the 2009 agreement ... See full document

... Mootness may not deprive a Court of jurisdiction if the controversy is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Hamamoto v. Ige, 881 F.3d 719, 722 (9th Cir. 2018). However, this exception applies only where: ... See full document

... 18. When evaluating a proposed compromise, a bankruptcy court must assess and balance the value of the claim that is being compromised against the value to the estate by virtue of the compromise proposed. Bankruptcy ... See full document

... documents among and between servicers and owners, and custodial functions or appointment of officers relating to such documents; (13) Decisions on disposition of residential mortgage loans, including, without ... See full document

... discussing Defendants’ potential responses to a proposal from Plaintiff. Defendants withheld this correspondence on the basis of attorney-client privilege. [Dkt. 78 at 1.] Second, there is a chain of email ... See full document

... misjoinder occurs when a plaintiff purposefully attempts to defeat removal by joining together claims against two or more defendants where the presence of one would defeat removal and where in reality there is no ... See full document

... 3. Here, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, we have diversity jurisdiction over the subject matter of this suit and the arbitration took place in Philadelphia. 5 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; 9 U.S.C. § 9 (stating that “application ... See full document

... 7. In 1988, Curtis and Michelle purchased real property located at 12231 South 1950 East, Draper, Utah 84020 (the “Draper Property”), and in 1992 they constructed their personal residence on the Draper Property, ... See full document